Do All People Go to Heaven? (Reasoning the Truth of Historic Christianity)

In February 2013, I composed my preliminary thoughts on ‘Universalism’ under the title “Do All People Go to Heaven?” The title remains the same, since I intend to dwell further on Universalism. For the sake of continuity, please observe the synopsis of my previous blog:

1. Universalism is a belief that all people will go to heaven (inherit God’s salvation), irrespective of who, what, why and how they are.

2. All religions are fundamentally different; they contradict each other (E.g. Atheism negates God, and the God of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are fundamentally different). If religions are poles apart, how can all people go to heaven?

3. Hell is not a literal presence for a Universalist. The Universalist will allegorize passages from the Bible that describes hell.

4. Universalism does not explain evil & justice on earth. Universalism advocates an immoral world. Man can do what he desires (even horrendous evil) and still be saved.

5. The god of the Universalist is evil (not offended by sins and cannot stop evil) and unjust (cannot provide justice to people). So we infer that the god Universalist’s posit is imperfect; in the likeness of an imperfect man. This god need not be worshipped or glorified.

In order to expose the errors innate in Universalism, we ought to establish the foundations of Historic Christianity to reveal its intricate composition and to state the basic contradiction between Universalism and the Historic Christianity. Then we need to understand the nature of truth, and subsequently be convinced to reason out our belief.

Historic Christianity

It is important to know the details of Historic Christianity in order to identify the errors of contradictory truth claims. Please observe the intricate interdependence of the essentials of Historic Christianity:

1. Truth: There is absolute and objective truth.

2. The reliability of the Bible: The Bible is inspired (by God), inerrant (no errors), and infallible (trustworthy). It is the only and the final authority for faith and life. The Bible is absolutely truthful.¹

3. Existence of God: The Bible reveals a holy God.²

4. God’s Trinity: There is one God, in the persons of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

5. Miracles of God: God is supernatural and active, so HE will act. HIS supernatural acts are miracles.³

6. Incarnation: The Savior of the world, the Lord Jesus was fully God and fully man.⁴

7. Total Depravity of Mankind: The Bible reveals the total depravity (sinfulness) of mankind.

8. Condemnation of God upon Sinful Man: The holiness of God entails God’s condemnation (wrath) upon sinners.

9. Virgin Birth: Christ was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. Thus, Christ is 100% God, and does not inherit mankind’s sin.

10. Sinlessness of Christ: Christ lived a sinless life on earth. Only a sinless God can save mankind of all their sins – past, present and future.

11. Grace: The gracious God saves mankind from their sins. Salvation is a free gift, since salvation is not gained by man’s work.  

12. Faith in Christ: Man should necessarily believe in Christ for the appropriation of Christ’s one-time, perfect sacrifice for his salvation.

13. Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ: Christ died and rose again. Resurrection was mandatory for overcoming evil and death.

14. Christ’s Bodily Ascension: Christ’s resurrection was a bodily resurrection and HE bodily ascended to heaven. Our resurrection will also be a bodily resurrection (glorious body).

15. Christ’s Intercession: Christ lives to intercede for all those who believe in HIM.

16. Second coming of Christ: Christ will come again in glory to judge mankind, to eliminate evil forever, and to usher a life of eternal coexistence with God in the new heaven and earth.  

These are the essentials of Historic Christianity. Unbelief /denial of any one essential will nullify the others through a chain reaction (E.g. If one denies absolute truth, then Bible is not absolutely true, so miracles are denied and along with it Christ’s virgin birth, resurrection, and salvation will also be denied.)  Denial of any one of the essentials of Historic Christianity is to deny Historic Christianity. Thus it is a reasonable implication that those who deny one (or more) essential doctrine(s) of Historic Christianity are cults or liberals or postmodern Christians.

We observe that salvation according to Historic Christianity is by grace through faith. Only those who believe in Christ will be saved (Christian Particularism). Those who do not believe in Christ will not be saved. Since Universalism declares salvation of all mankind, it totally contradicts Historic Christianity. The question that demands verdict is whether Universalism and Historic Christianity, proclaiming contradictory truth claims, are true within the same context of salvation.  

Exclusivity of Truth:

Can contradictory statements within the same context be true? This leads us to examine the nature of truth. Please think through with me:

1. Truth is pure. Truth should not contain errors / lies.

2. Opposite of truth is an error / lie.

3. Opposite of an error / lie need not be truth, but it could be another error / lie.

4. An error / lie could contain strands of truth, but strands of truth will not transform the lie to truth.

If you agree to the flow of thoughts mentioned above, then the entailments are:

1. Truth excludes errors / lies.

2. Truth is absolute, singular and exclusive (also consistent). Hence, the opposite of truth is essentially a lie, it cannot be another truth.

3. Simply speaking, 1+1=2, there cannot be another answer to this equation.

If we have two truth claims, one should ascertain if there are contradictions between the two truth claims. Contradictory truth claims will not be true at the same time and in the same context.⁵

If two people are looking at the sky from the same room and at the same time, and if one says that the sun is brightly shining and the other says that there is no sun in the sky, only one of them can be right. In this context, the truth is that the sun is either visible or invisible; the sun cannot be both visible and invisible at the same time.

Moreover, if someone says, ‘there is no truth,’ then his statement is also not true - it’s nonsensical. Someone else could say that ‘truth’ is only a matter of opinion, and does not possess an absolute meaning. In this case, that very statement is also a matter of opinion and does not possess an absolute meaning, so it’s nonsensical as well.

So we can confidently affirm that truth is absolute, singular, exclusive, and objective.

The nature of truth teaches us that truth excludes contradictions. Since Historic Christianity and Universalism contradict each other, both these contradicting worldviews cannot be true at the same time and within the same context (e.g. Salvation). It’s either Historic Christianity or Universalism, not both.

If we believe that Historic Christianity is true, we ought to give reasons for our faith and hope. But why?

Reasons to Offer Reasons For Our Faith:

Just as Apostle Paul reasoned out with the Jews and the Gentiles in Athens and Corinth (Acts 17: 22 – 18: 4), we are to reason out with those of contradictory views. A few reasons to reason out our faith are:

Perspective of Discipleship: We are mandated to disciple others (Matthew 28: 19). Discipling includes answering / clarifying honest questions. Those who disciple others ought to practice their religion seriously. Serious practitioners of religion should have a basic knowledge of other worldviews. Lack of interest in contrasting worldviews, such as Universalism, is valid if discipleship is an insignificant part of our life. But if we are a disciple of the Lord Jesus and practice our religion seriously (seriously committed to it), we should explain the reason for our serious practice and commitment. Reasoning is innate in discipleship.

Perspective of Biblical Mandate: If we cannot explain the reason for our hope, then we are blind in our faith and practice. If ‘unexamined life is not worth living,’⁶ then ‘unexamined faith is not worth believing.’⁷ The unexamined faith cannot distinguish good from evil, and cannot provide reason for the hope we have in the Triune God and the Bible. Every Christian is mandated to demolish arguments and lofty opinions against God, and provide the reason for his belief in Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 10: 4-6; Hebrews 5: 14; 1 Peter 3: 15). This is the biblical mandate. Failure to provide a reason implies shallow faith and an anticipation to disbelieve Christ when confused and confronted with situations or arguments apparently more powerful than our faith. Moreover, failure to offer reason for our hope in Christ is a disobedience to God and HIS commands.

Perspective of Evangelization: We exist to help our family and neighbors. When we know the truth, we should speak of the truth to our neighbor. We live in the digital era; there are many who evangelize their worldview through digital and other mediums. Transmission of our faith mandates us to offer reasons / evidences for our faith. Failure to offer evidences reduces our belief to a lie. Those who believe in lies are liars. If we are not liars, we ought to substantiate the truth of our belief.

These are adequate reasons to reason out our faith. Let us reason together, says the Lord (Isaiah 1: 18, NASB). Thus we ought to reason the truth of Historic Christianity.

Having established the foundations, I will, in my next blog, provide adequate reasons for Historic Christianity from other perspectives, so to debunk Universalism. Amen.

References:

¹ Every apparent contradiction in the Bible can be reasonably explained. The Bible is the only ancient historic document that possesses a plethora of objective reasonings and evidences for its reliability.

² The existence of God can be independently explained by philosophy and science.

³ Philosopher David Hume’s argument against miracles can be reasonably debunked.

⁴ Thus, Christ’s sacrifice was a perfect sacrifice – both from the divine and human standpoint. The Lord Jesus Christ is God incarnate, the Son of God, and the second person of the blessed Trinity. HE saves mankind from sins.

⁵ Law of Non-Contradiction

⁶ Socrates

⁷ Edwin Navarro

Understanding Catholics and their Critics

I will dive a little deeper into the Catholic rationale behind their contentious practices and highlight a few of the prevalent contentious practices of the non-Catholics that negate their seemingly superior theological advantage.

Catholic theologians, I believe, didn’t innovate random practices contrary to the Bible, but have read the Bible and subsequently implemented and supported these practices according to their interpretations. The essence of many of these contentious practices is to draw closer to Christ. The ‘means’ may be faulty but not the ‘end.’ The same applies to the contentious practices of the non-Catholic churches.

For example, the Catholic and the non-Catholic understanding of ‘grace’ is quite different. A non-Catholic would define ‘grace’ as God’s goodness towards those who deserve punishment. In other words, grace is “unmerited favor” that is freely given, never obligated, and cannot be earned. The only human attitude that is appropriate to receiving such a grace is ‘faith.’ ¹

Now examine ‘grace’ within the Catholic comprehension. “The meaning of the word grace is primarily favor: but it is used especially of that act of favor by which God finally salvages his creation from man’s mismanagement and salvages it through men…” (emphasis mine).² The phrase ‘God finally salvages his creation from man’s mismanagement,’ emphasizes God’s act, but in the next few words it emphasizes man’s role while stating ‘and salvages it through men.’

Moreover, please read these words, “…there occurs a distinction between two so-called effects of grace: it works in us to justify or vindicate or redeem, and it works with us to reward our cooperation. For grace is a gift to our cooperation so to speak…” (emphasis mine).³ The emphasis that God’s grace works ‘in us’ implies God’s act, whereas ‘with us’ implies man’s role in appropriating God’s grace. So grace is not merely a gift from God, it is a gift to our cooperation. This emphasizes man’s role. Thus the Catholic hermeneutics of the Bible causes ‘salvation by works’ theology. However the Catholic theologians do emphasize grace as a free gift as well. Please read the footnote for relevant quotations.

Therefore, it is my belief that the Catholic theology should not be ridiculed at the applicational realm of its contentious practices; instead it should be debated at the exegetical realm of its Biblical hermeneutics.

On a different note, one could argue that the theology of the ‘Christian Universalists’ are a similar outcome of a faulty biblical interpretation. On the contrary, I believe that the christian universalists are a product of an eisegetical interpretation of the Bible. ‘Eisegesis’ or ‘to eisegete’ is to express the interpreter’s own ideas – thoughts that are not present in the text.⁴ Therefore, it would be even (un)fair to term the christian universalists as a cult, but the Catholics cannot be grouped as a cult. If you ask me whether christian universalists would go to heaven despite their false understanding, I would respond in the affirmative. (By the way, the Catholic leaders are guilty of universalistic teaching as well).

When non-Catholic christians slam their Catholic brothers and sisters, it is the case of “pot calling kettle black.” There are contentious practices within the non-Catholic church, and one should acknowledge that. Moreover, when we denounce or throw mud at another, we not only get our hands dirty but are losing ground from beneath our feet.⁵

Here is an introductory bird’s-eye view of a few similarities in the contentious practices existing in both the Catholic and the non-Catholic churches.

#	Contentious Catholic Practice / Teaching	Scriptural Violation	Equivalent Contentious Non-Catholic Practice / Teaching
1	Salvation – Baptismal and Sacramental	Ephesians 2: 8-10; Titus 3: 5	Baptismal salvation & Gift based (Tongues, Prophecy etc)
2	Baptism mandated	Romans 10: 13	Baptism mandated
3	Worshiping Mary & Saints	Exodus 20: 3; John 14: 6	Worshiping gifted people – divine healers, preachers, pastors etc. Praying through some “supposedly-righteous” people
4	Idol Worship	Exodus 20: 4-6	Idols worship: Building, Images of cross, Bible
5	Sacraments Priesthood – distinction	Ephesians 2: 8-10; John 1: 12; Romans 3: 20 John 13: 14; 1 Peter 2:9	Speaking in tongues, prophesying, school for “signs and wonders”  etc. Similar practice exists

If the Catholic church teaches only a baptized believer will be saved, then some non-Catholic denominations are guilty of the same practice. If baptism is mandatory for salvation, then let us not scream about being saved by grace alone. If we are only saved by grace through faith, then baptism isn’t a factor in our salvation.

If the Catholic church teaches that Mary and the saints ought to be worshipped, then the non-Catholics worship gifted people in Christendom. These gifted people may be divine healers, powerful preachers, pastors etc.

There is a distinction between respect and worship. To respect is to esteem or honor. To worship is to respect, honor and, more importantly, to submit - all our faculties to the object of worship. It is admirable to respect people, but we ought to be diligent while integrating everything that is poured into our domain. The thoughts, words and deeds of man should be examined in the light of God’s Word. We ought to submit to God and worship HIM alone. When we agree with man’s perspective, our conscious submission or worship is only to God, and not man, who is merely the channel of God. From this perspective, no human being is infallible, neither the Pastor nor the Pope!

If Catholics are guilty of idolatry, the non-Catholics are also equally guilty. Buildings, images of cross and bible verses, and even the Bible are idolized. The Bible by our side will not heal us (nor would the image of cross). These objects do not make one a disciple of the Lord. The Bible does no magic by its mere presence. The word of God when believed, read, integrated and spoken, keeps evil out and brings healing (cf. Matthew 4: 4, 7, 10).

If a Catholic is to practice his Sacraments (sacred signs), then there are innovative ‘Sacraments’ from the non-Catholic church. Some non-Catholic churches insist on speaking in tongues or the ability to prophecy or heal. There are schools that apparently impart these gifts. To the best of my knowledge, these are gifts of the Holy Spirit, given by God as HE pleases and chooses. I am unsure how man can supersede God in imparting these gifts. (A counter argument would be that God gifted that man the gift of gift-impartation, but anything taken to the realm of subjective will suffer the lack of objective verification, hence disputable.)

The reformation rebelled against the contentious practices of the Catholic church and empowered the ordinary christian to discern and apply the right and discard the wrong. Unfortunately, it is the “reformed church” (used generically, not denominationally) that is guilty of propagating the same contentious practice, even in a diluted form. I do see an application of this verse in the lives of the non-Catholic churches, “From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more” (Luke 12: 47-48, NASB).

If christians from the catholic church are going to hell based on their contentious practices, then the christians from the much-knowing non-Catholic churches should also go to hell for practicing similar contentious practices. In a nutshell, the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith crumbles into dust.

It is not about which denomination is better or worse, it is all about sincerely loving Christ our Lord and obeying God’s Word. May the good Lord bless us with the much needed enlightenment of HIS Word to drive out the imperfection that plagues us, and lead us towards HIS perfect presence. Amen.

Notes and References:

¹ Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p 200-201.

² Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Law & Grace, p 278. (Quote from ‘Introductory Comment’ of the editor, Timothy McDermott).

³Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Law & Grace, p 279. (Quote from ‘Introductory Comment’ of the editor, Timothy McDermott).

⁴ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eisegesis

⁵ Ravi Zacharias’ statement

Quotes of Thomas Aquinas from Summa Theologiae:

Thomas Aquinas on Grace as a free & earned gift of God:

(ST: Summa Theologiae)

“Grace then is a disposition presupposed to instilled virtues as their origin and root. And since by grace we are reborn as sons of God, grace must modify our very nature in some way: it is presupposed to virtues, so affects what is presupposed to every ability of the soul, namely its nature.” ST, Law & Grace, 110.3

“Grace does five things: first it heals our soul, so that secondly we will to do good, thirdly actually do the good we will, fourthly persevere in doing good, and finally come to glory.” ST, Law & Grace, 111.3

“Only God can give grace, since it surpasses the abilities of any created nature, and shares in the nature of God.” ST, Law & Grace, 112.1.

“Grace is given to every man in the measure Christ gives it, for perfecting the saints and building up Christ’s body.” ST, Law & Grace, 111.4.

 “The end that grace moves towards is eternal life, and the movement develops by growth in charity and grace. So growth in grace can also be earned commensurately…So perseverance in glory (which is the end in question) can be earned. But perseverarance in grace throughout life cannot be earned, since it depends only on God’s movement, the source of all earning.” ST, Law & Grace, 114.8,9.

Thomas Aquinas on Sacraments with its focus in Christ:

“The Sacraments are signs of all three: commemorating Christ’s past sufferings, demonstrating the grace those sufferings are presently producing in us, and foretelling the future glory. Because a sacrament is a sign of the sanctifying cause as sanctifying, it must be a sign of the effect produced.” ST, Living in Christ, 60.3.

“The patriarchs were saved through faith in a Christ to come; we are saved through faith in a Christ who has already been born and suffered. Sacraments are signs expressing the faith by which we are saved, and it is right to have different signs for what is future, past or present.” ST, Living in Christ, 61.4

Thomas Aquinas on the need for Sacraments:

“You cant unite men in a religion unless they share visible symbols or sacraments keeping them together.” (Aquinas quoting St. Augustine, ST, Living in Christ, 61.1)

The fact that God after Christ’s coming instituted different Sacraments doesn’t show change in God; the earlier were suitable for prefiguring grace, the later showed grace present.” ST, Living in Christ, 61.4

Thomas Aquinas on Transubstantiation:

The conversion of bread into the body of Christ is similar in some ways both to creation and to natural change yet different in others. Common to all three is a certain order: after this, that. In creation after non-existence existence, in this sacrament after the substance of bread the body of Christ, in natural change after black white, or after air fire. (Aquinas’ Aristotelian basis for transubstantiation. ST, Living in Christ, 75:8)

“Whatever is true of natural change because of the shared subject must be denied of transubstantiation: we can say that what is white could be black but we cant say that what is non-existent could be existent or that what is bread could be the body of Christ. Nor can we properly say that existence is made out of non-existence of the body of Christ out of bread, nor that the bread will be the body or becomes the body, though because the properties do remain we use some of these ways of speaking in a sort of analogous way, not meaning by bread the substance of bread, but using it as a general term for what underlies the properties of bread , though that is at first bread could be the body of Christ because of the possibility of its conversion is not founded on some potentiality to become in the bread, but on a power to convert in the Creator.”  ST, Living in Christ, 75.8.

Do All People Go To heaven?

            In the movie “Life of Pi,” the young man ‘Pi’ though raised a Hindu, follows Christianity and Islam as well, in an endeavor to comprehend God amidst the diverse proclamations. In the end, the viewer is given the latitude to subjectively interpret the statement, “and so it goes with God.” I consider this as a classic case in point that enables one to soak in the various comforting or positive facets from each faith system to arrive at a dogma that supposedly satisfies ones inner longing for peace and wellness. But does one always introspect and examine these dogmas for its internal coherencies and truth claims?

            Having commented on the topic of sin, judgment, heaven, and hell, I find a need to digress and visit the dogma of “Universalism.” The main tenet of universalism is that all people will eventually be with God in heaven. In other words, one’s religion or world-view does not matter. One can believe in anything and do anything, but ultimately, along with everyone else, he too will be with God.

            On the periphery, universalism sounds very noble, just, tolerant, loving, and hence, acceptable. Volumes have been written and spoken ‘for’ and ‘against’ this view by eminent scholars. You can dig deep into this persuasion if this be your interest. But my specific concerns with the espousal of universalism are two-fold: (1) Validity of its truth claim, and (2) Interpretation of the various verses of the Holy Bible that are contrary to the tenets of Universalism (I will refrain from digging deep into this concern for now).

            This subject will be kept to a domain of introduction. The allied subject(s) such as “Annihilationism” (the belief that the unbelievers of the Lord Jesus will be annihilated or cease to exist post their death) will not be mentioned, even though a topic such as this should be of interest to a Christian, since this view of hell was supported by an eminent and well respected Christian pastor, scholar and theologian, Rev. John Stott. My one cent view is that annihilationism is contrary to the Biblical teaching. I wholeheartedly subscribe to a literal hermeneutic (interpretation) of the Holy Bible, hence my concerns are an outcome of this hermeneutic.

            If everyone goes to heaven irrespective of their religious worldview, then universalism implies that all religious worldviews are the same, or that these don’t contradict each other, or even that these don’t matter. But reality states that the essence of all religions is in contradiction with each other. For example, an atheist negates the presence of God, a Christian worships a Trinitarian monotheistic God, a Muslim worships one God (monotheism), and a Hindu worships a pantheon of gods (pantheism) etc. If the central figure of every religion is different, then how can one conclude that all these religions are speaking the truth? In other words, who rules this heaven – ‘No god (godless)’ or ‘One Trinitarian God’ or ‘One God’ or a ‘Pantheon of gods’? All these religions cannot claim to speak the truth while mutually contradicting each other. Truth in its nature excludes (contradictions).

            From within the Biblical perspective, if universalism is to be affirmed, then hell should cease to be a literal presence. But the Holy Bible categorically affirms the presence of a literal hell. So the universalists subscribe to a non-literal interpretation (E.g. allegorical) of the Holy Bible to dilute the literal interpretation of hell and the verses that are in contradiction to the universalistic tenets. Often, verses are pulled out of context and interpreted so to agree with universalism. The interpretative methods of a universalist is a serious concern.

            How does a universalist define sin? John Piper, a Christian Pastor, echoes the Bible when he states that sin is ultimately an assault on God. If all go heavenward, then is sin unpunished? Does universalism posit another dogma of sin – a sin that does not offend God but delights HIM, and a sin that does not offend a fellow human? Or does universalism posit an absolute forgiveness of all sins, irrespective of repentance, confession, and a desire to reject the sin in the future? Now this dogma would produce a plethora of painful complexities for a universalist to unravel (notions of sin, morality etc.).

            How should one comprehend evil from within the universalistic persuasion? If a young girl is raped and killed brutally, and if the universalist screams that the perpetrators of this horrendous evil go to heaven, then should the universalist even bother to punish the perpetrators of evil? Well, the problem compounds if the person raped and killed happens to be from within the close circle of the universalist. Would this universalist still agree and accept the actions of the rapists and killers given the fact that they are all going to heaven? But then the universalist may state that justice will be rendered on this earth. This still does not solve the problem for there is a good possibility that perpetrators of evil walk away scot-free, so in this case there is no justice rendered on earth or in heaven. What then is the stand of the universalist?

            To escape the clutches of this complexity, a universalist may refer to a “mild psychological view” of hell (the resident of hell can enter heaven upon genuine repentance), but then there is no substantiation for this view from within the Holy Bible. The Catholic Bible offers the concept of purgatory as a variant flavor of this dogma. This still does not solve all moral and ethical problems of this world. One can still choose to live a life perpetrating all evil possible knowing that his time in hell is only temporary. So is the universalist subscribing to an immoral world? The plot thickens!

            Finally, how does a universalist define God? Let me pour a torrent of questions. It appears to me that the god of the universalist is not offended by sins, so does this mean that his god is pleased by sins? Is a universalist worshipping an evil god? Or is he worshipping a weak god who is unable to stop evil? Is a universalist worshiping an unjust god? Or is this god an imperfect god? If this god is an imperfect god, then why give him the place of God, for this god is only equal to an imperfect man? An embarrassment of painful complexities and the plot thickens greatly!!

            Universalism, as an independent worldview, is acceptable within the parameters of freedom of thought and expression. But universalistic belief from within the Judeo-Christian worldview is untenable. One seems to gain much surface level peace, comfort, satisfaction and contentment to claim that all people will go to heaven. But this dogma lacks foundation and stability, and opens up numerous painful complexities that beg for true answers. I certainly believe that universalism does not find a place within the Judeo-Christian worldview.

            In the pursuit of meaning in this life, we should endeavor to protect ourselves from falsehood. Truth alone gives peace and meaning to life. I reckon it was Sir Winston Churchill who said that truth is attended by a bodyguard of lies. We could be like ‘Pi’ and explore truth from the various worldviews available today, but we should sieve away the lies that confront us. Our belief should withstand the test for truth and coherency. I seriously believe that dependence on the one true God and the diligent understanding of the Holy Bible will alone give us meaning to life and the ability to protect ourselves.

            Please enlighten me if you desire to contradict.