This Can't Mean What It Says Because...

A couple of weeks ago I began to write a post on the topic which follows, but since I'm a painfully slow writer that post has been delayed for a bit.  However, today I came across a video in my YouTube feed that I found so troubling, I decided to offer a few brief comments for now.

The name of the Video is "The Descent into Gloom: What is Hell Like?" presented by the John Ankerberg show. This video contains an exchange between John Ankerberg and Dr. Erwin Lutzer, who is currently the Pastor Emeritus of Moody Church in Chicago, on the topic of "hell" and what the Bible has to say about it.  You may view it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzHqkwrAs9s

What struck me about this video was not their supposedly scriptural defense of the doctrine of eternal torment (I've covered that material in detail elsewhere), but rather their incredibly shallow and dismissive discussion of those who reject that doctrine.

John Ankerberg begins by bringing up the subject of universalism — the teaching that in the end all will be reconciled to God.  However, in doing so he defines universalism like this:

Universalism - The belief that God is so loving that everyone in the end will be saved no matter what they have done

This is astonishingly dishonest.  I don't claim to speak for what "universalists" in general believe, but I know of no serious, Bible believing Christian that believes in the final restoration of all of mankind who has ever defined universalism in this way.  What John Ankerberg has given here is not a definition, but a mere caricature.

I have to ask: Does John Ankerberg suddenly believe in salvation by works?  The question is not: 'Will everyone be saved no matter what they have done?', but rather 'Will anyone be saved because of, or regardless of what they have done'?  Last time I checked, Christians believe that no one is saved because of what they have done, and no one is lost because of what they've done.  Whether or not a person is saved depends solely upon our faith in Jesus Christ and our belief in the gospel of his death, burial, and resurrection.

Would John Ankerberg think I was being honest if I defined any Christian as: "A person who is saved no matter what they have done as long as they accept Jesus, even if in the final second of their life"?  This caricature of the universalist position is nothing more than an attempt to poison the well and discredit an opposing viewpoint before the conversation even begins.

But that's not even the main problem with this video.  Ankerberg then turns to Dr. Lutzer to address the question of universalism.  Lutzer answers:

John, it is true that some people have looked at the Bible, and the doctrine of hell has been so difficult to accept that they have tried to find scriptures that would somehow indicate that in the end everyone is saved.

And so they go to passages like Colossians chapter one where the Bible says that God is going to reconcile all things in Christ, and so they interpret that to mean that in the end hell will be, what shall we say, reconciled to God, Satan will be reconciled to God, and there will be in eternity a universe of happiness with no hell.

Well, that's a wonderful vision, but it does not stand the scrutiny of scripture.  You can't simply pick and choose verses and hope that these verses overcome the plain teaching of scripture.

From there the conversation moves into a discussion about several Biblical passages which they believe teach the eternal torment of the wicked. 

But here's what's so troubling.  Ankerberg and Lutzer never once in the remainder of the video attempt to address the very example they use to show how some have concluded that the Bible does in fact teach the final restoration of all.  Lutzer simply states that some go to a passage such as Colossians 1:20, which says that in Christ all things will be reconciled to God, and then tells us without any further proof, evidence, or explanation, that the passage simply can't mean what it appears to say because he can find other passages that he believes teach the doctrine of eternal punishment.

In other words, he has done the very thing that he's accused the universalists of doing: Cherry pick verses in the hope that he can overcome other verses that he doesn't like.  He complains that certain Christians run to "verse B" in an attempt to bypass the meaning of "verse A", but then tells us that his position is correct just because he blindly asserts the opposite: "Verse B" is incorrect because he can run to "verse A" to contradict it.

Without making any effort to explain the meaning of Colossians 1:20 he has unwittingly taught his hearers that the Bible contradicts itself.  If Dr. Lutzer genuinely believes that Colossians 1:20 does not teach the final reconciliation of "all things" (as the verse clearly states), then he owes his hearers some explanation.  Why does he feel that he can simply dismiss the clear meaning of this passage because he believes to have found other passages which he thinks clearly teach otherwise?  This type of presentation is lazy, shallow, and dangerous.

What would Ankerberg and Lutzer think of me if I argued in the same way —That I could dismiss out of hand, without any comment or explanation, all of their "proof-texts" about hell because I felt that I had found clear verses that teach the final restoration of all? This type of argumentation proves absolutely nothing.  Worse, it gives the impression that the Bible contains actual contradictions.

Ankerberg and Lutzer dismiss universalists as those who are so troubled by the clear Biblical teaching about hell that they desperately pour over the Bible looking for passages that teach otherwise.  But why couldn't I say the same about them?  Why couldn't I say that believers in eternal torment are so troubled by the scriptures that clearly teach the ultimate reconciliation of all, that they desperately seek out proof-texts for eternal punishment?

In the end, their entire "argument" boils down to this:  Certain passages of scripture can't mean what they say because we can find other passages that contradict them. Does anyone find this type of reasoning convincing? 

Surely the ultimate fate of the wicked is a topic of the greatest importance.  If the scriptures do in fact teach that God will  torment the wicked in fire for all eternity then certainly those who hold to that view owe their hearers more than the type of shoddy, hypocritical reasoning offered up in this video.

If, on the other hand, God does intend to ultimately reconcile the entire creation to Himself through Christ, and if there are verses which seem to clearly teach this glorious truth, then they deserve serious consideration, not the type of condescending dismissiveness offered by those such as Ankerberg and Lutzer.

Are Christians willing to have a serious, reasoned, and thorough discussion on this topic?  Are you?