In a recent theological discussion, I engaged with a universalist apologist, so to explore fundamental questions about salvation, faith, and eternal destiny. The exchange is of particular interest for me, because I do not approach universalism from a traditionalist point of view such as Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT), but I do so as a conditionalist.
Understanding the Theological Framework
Before diving into the specific points of discussion, it’s important to understand the basics about the two positions represented here:
Universalism (or Ultimate Restoration (UR)) holds that all people will eventually be saved and reconciled to God, either in this life or after death.
Conditionalism maintains that eternal life is conditional upon faith in Christ. Those who believe receive eternal life, while those who don’t will cease to exist after the second death.
The Gospel’s Purpose in Universal Restoration
The discussion began with a basic as well as fundamental challenge to universalism:
If everyone will ultimately be saved, what purpose does preaching the Gospel serve?
The universalist response provided three main arguments.
First, in their view, the Gospel is more than avoiding punishment—it’s about knowing God, being transformed, and experiencing the joy of his kingdom. Rejecting it means living in darkness and missing out on the abundant life Jesus offers now (Jn 10:10).
Second, universalism doesn’t erase consequences, they claim. Many believe in post-mortem purification, sometimes called “hell,” as a refining process (which seems more akin to the concept of purgatory). The Gospel is still urgent because rejecting it means facing that purification rather than embracing salvation freely.
Finally, love compels evangelism. If Jesus is the fullest revelation of God’s love, why wouldn’t believers share it? All roads may lead to God, but some are filled with suffering while others bring peace. The Gospel helps people find the best path (and yet, Jesus says he is the only way (Jn 14:6), not the best way).
Thus, from an universalist point of view, the urgency of the Gospel isn’t removed—it’s shifted from fear of damnation to love and transformation.
The Refining Fire Controversy
Building on the first response, I clarified that, in my view, the urgency of the Gospel isn’t driven by fear of eternal torment, as I don’t hold to ECT. However, it is still urgent because of the sobering reality of final separation from God, i.e., death. From there, I challenged a point the apologist raised—the idea that some universalists believe in a “refining fire” view of hell. I questioned whether this view conflicts with the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, which universalists also affirm. Essentially, I asked:
are they suggesting that—at least some—people are ultimately saved through a purging fire rather than through faith in Christ?
The apologist’s first response to this was something I had already heard before. He said that some universalists might argue that salvation is still by faith in Christ, even in the suffering of the refining fire. Those who reject him in this life may come to faith through post-mortem correction—akin to Paul’s sudden conversion. The process isn’t an alternative to faith but a path to it. Others take a broader view, believing faith can be awakened after death. They cite Philippians 2:10-11, suggesting every confession of Christ will eventually be genuine. They challenge the idea that faith’s timing matters. If salvation is by grace through faith—they ask—why wouldn’t that apply beyond death?
At this point, I set aside some of his arguments to focus on a key idea I’d heard before—the claim that the refining fireview of hell is a process that ultimately leads a person to faith, thereby aligning universalism with salvation by faith alone. With that in mind, I issued my challenge to this specific point:
Doesn’t the refining fire view of hell suggest that God forces people into belief through suffering? It’s odd that universalists, who reject eternal conscious torment because they see it as cruel, would still accept a version of hell that involves pain as a means of conversion. Isn’t this just another form of coercion?
The answer was that a universalist would argue that God’s refining fire is corrective, not torturous—meant to heal and restore, like a surgeon removing a tumour. They’d cite passages like Hebrews 12:6, emphasising divine discipline as an act of love. They might also compare it to natural consequences: when people make destructive choices, suffering can lead them to change. Similarly, God’s refining fire isn’t coercion but a wake-up call that draws people to repentance without violating free will.
Personally, the comparison to earthly suffering didn’t hold. The key difference is that, in this life, suffering generally results from natural consequences rather than direct punishment from God—especially for non-believers, whom scripture doesn’t suggest God actively disciplines. But in the refining fire view, God deliberately inflicts suffering on non-believers to lead them to faith. This raised another question for me:
if God’s ultimate goal is the restoration of all, why not bring people to faith in this life? Why is a post-mortem refining process necessary?
The apologist acknowledged that there’s a crucial difference between suffering as a consequence of sin in this life and God actively applying suffering in their view of hell.
He continued by presenting more nuanced views, as is common with any theological position:
- Some universalists don’t see post-mortem purification as painful but believe people will come to faith when confronted with the full truth of God’s love after death. But—I ask now and not then—doesn’t Christ’s death on the cross already reveal that truth? Why would another revelation be needed?
- Others argue it’s about free will—people reject God in this life, so a post-mortem process allows for eventual acceptance. But why not intervene before death rather than after?
- Finally, some accept that God does indeed inflict suffering but see it as restorative, not retributive—similar to how he purified Israel through exile. However, God never applies such purification as a means to eternal life.
With that, I decided that we had exhausted the topic, and I moved on to other questions.
First and Second Death
After a brief exchange on John 3:36—which circled back to the same argument that people won’t reject the Son forever, so all will eventually have life—I shifted the focus to the second death.
How do universalists interpret the second death? The Bible speaks of both a first and second death, and as a conditionalist, I believe that after resurrection, unbelievers are judged, punished, and then experience the second death—essentially like the first death, but permanent. But if universalism teaches that everyone ultimately lives, how do they explain the second death?
The apologist said that some universalists see the second death as symbolic, representing a deep purification rather than literal annihilation. They might compare it to Romans 6:6, where Paul speaks of dying to sin while still living. Others view the second death as a transitional phase rather than permanent destruction. They point to Revelation 21:8, where the lake of fire is called the second death, yet just a few verses later (21:24-26), nations are still entering the New Jerusalem, suggesting judgment isn’t the end, but part of restoration. Some argue that “death” in the Bible doesn’t always mean ceasing to exist but can refer to separation from God’s life. In this view, the second death is the final removal of sin, leading to ultimate redemption.
This is when I realised that traditionalists and universalists aren’t so different. Both believe everyone will live forever—traditionalists argue that some will spend eternity in torment while others enjoy bliss, whereas universalists claim all will ultimately be with God. Both also tend to redefine death, not as literal cessation, but as some form of separation from God, whether permanent or temporary.
In the end, universalists boil everything down to a single argument: anything after death is simply a purifying process leading to ultimate restoration. That’s the crux of their position.
Yet, the idea that further purification is needed after death seems to contradict Scripture, which teaches that Jesus’ sacrifice fully removed sin. Sin is no longer the issue—what matters is whether one accepts Christ. John the Baptist said that Jesus, the Lamb of God, took away the sin of the world. Not the sins of the people, or some people, but he removed sin altogether. Now, people either believe and receive life, or reject him and remain without it.
From a simplicity standpoint, the conditionalist view aligns more clearly with Scripture. Universalism introduces extra layers—hell as a refining fire, second death as purification—when none of these are necessary. Hebrews states that Jesus’ sacrifice was once and for all (Hebrews 10:10-14), making any additional cleansing redundant.
Moreover, scripture presents death as humanity’s ultimate enemy, introduced through sin and finally destroyed in Christ. Paul declares, “Death, where is your sting?”—affirming that believers no longer fear it. But if universalists redefine death as something other than literal death, they blur its meaning and use it to justify extra theological steps.
To me, universalist arguments on this point seem weak, relying on unnecessary complexity rather than the straightforward biblical message.
Why Is Faith Necessary?
As we continued, I acknowledged that I sympathise with the universalist position to some extent. Many are deeply troubled by the thought that so many people—perhaps most throughout history—may never experience life as God intended. However, I try to avoid emotional reasoning when forming my beliefs. Even when I concluded that ECT was unbiblical, it was based on exegesis, not an emotional reaction to eternal torment, which hadn’t particularly troubled me before.
This discussion led me to a question that had been on my mind recently:
If Christ already paid for all sin, why is faith necessary for someone to receive life?
It is a valid question, I believe. Moreover, if Adam’s sin brought death to all without their consent, why must people now consent to receive life? Universalists highlight this issue, and while I don’t think they have a strong answer, the question itself is worth considering.
The apologist rightly pointed out that this is theological tension that exists beyond just the universalist debate. Even within conditionalism and traditionalism, the question remains: if Jesus’ atonement is truly for all, how do we explain why everyone isn’t automatically saved, without resorting to patently unbiblical explanations such as limited atonement?
The apologist continued highlighting that—within the UR camp—some may see faith not as a requirement for but as an acknowledgement of salvation. In this view, Jesus’ work is objectively complete, but faith is about participating in the life of Christ, rather than a condition for receiving it. Others—as already said—would argue that faith is indeed necessary but will ultimately be given to all.
Nevertheless, whilst universalists raise a valid question, their answers seem to create more theological problems than they solve. When we read Romans 5:18
“Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.”
On the surface, it seems to suggest that just as all inherited death from Adam, all now inherit life from Christ. But we also know from context that not everyone actually receives life. So how do we reconcile this? Together with the apologist, we reviewed the standard answers from all camps, e.g., that the “all” of Adam and Christ are actually different groups, or that faith is the necessary means of transition from Adam to Christ, or still that God’s justice demands personal responsibility. I don’t think any of these arguments provide a solid answer.
But here’s my take, and for now, this is where I stand.
In the beginning, Adam was innocent and had life, but unlike what we are commonly taught, his life wasn’t automatically secured—it was conditional. This should actually be fairly simple to prove: if mankind’s life with God wasn’t supposed to be secured through a test, what are we to make of Genesis 2:17?
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die (Gn 2:17)
When you ponder for a moment, it is actually obvious. Mankind faced a test: obey God regarding the tree of knowledge, or not. This test determined whether life would be confirmed or lost. When Adam failed, sin and death entered the world.
Ever since, every human has faced a similar test, though in reverse. Adam started with life and had to confirm it; we start in death and must choose life. Though the content of the test changes throughout biblical history, the mechanism does not: the test is about trusting what God says—in our age, His claim that Jesus is the Christ. Each person has the choice to either accept life or confirm their status of death.
This, for me, explains why Christ’s sacrifice isn’t automatically applied to everyone. Even from the very beginning, life was conditional—Adam had to trust God in order to be confirmed permanently in life. The same principle applies now: faith is the means by which life is confirmed.
Once we reach this harmonisation, the necessity of faith for salvation can be explained the same way we explain why God chose to put Adam to the test to begin with: God desires people to choose Him. That is why he did not create automata, but free agents; and that is also why we have now been living through a long history of pain and suffering, eagerly waiting for the redemption of all things (Ro 8:18-21).
Conclusion
Whilst universalism often arises from genuine concern for human destiny and draws from certain biblical texts, its explanations often require complex reinterpretations of Scripture, and they tend to lead to an inconsistent view. Since life was always conditional, it follows that some will live, and some will die. Unlike what both universalists and traditionalists claim, that is, that all are born to live forever, whether with God or separated from him (traditionalists only).
I believe the conditionalist position offers a more straightforward framework that:
- Maintains the integrity of biblical language
- Preserves the urgency of the Gospel
- Aligns with the broader biblical narrative
- Respects both divine justice and human responsibility
Nevertheless, we all must remain committed to careful exegesis whilst maintaining humility in our theological conclusions. The stakes of these discussions are high and we must ground our theology in Scripture rather than emotional preferences, while remaining open to deeper understanding of God’s revealed truth.
Plot twist
This blog post has been a unique endeavour for a few reasons. First, it’s likely the first time I’ve openly argued for my conditionalist view and rejection of Eternal Conscious Torment. Second—and perhaps most intriguingly—the universalist apologist I debated wasn’t a person at all, but a Generative AI.
Yes, you read that right. I launched the AI in voice mode to have a live conversation, instructing it to act as an apologist for Christian Universalism. From there, I issued my challenges, listened to its defences, refined my arguments, and moved on when I was satisfied.
What you’ve just read is my attempt to relay that debate in a more readable format, after carefully verifying that the AI’s responses accurately represented Christian Universalism.
Leave a Reply