The other day, I posted a couple of tweets listing bad objections to Christian universalism. Here is the second tweet:
“The second worst objection to Christian universalism: ‘If everybody is ultimately saved by Jesus, then why bother telling anybody?’
“Um, because it’s the best possible news. And God told us to.”
Steve Hays of Triablogue wrote a response to this tweet and here is the point in his article to which I want to respond:
“Universalism is the best possible news for whom? It may be the best possible news for Mao, Stalin, and ISIS (to name a few), but how is it the best possible news for victims of horrific evil that their perps won’t suffer retributive judgment for their vicious heinous crimes?”
I am not surprised that Hays posted a comment like that, but wow is it revealing of his utter inability to understand the Gospel. Hays presumably thinks it is good news that Christ’s atoning work extends to him and his crowd, but he is deeply offended at the notion that it should extend to these other sinners as well, presumably the really bad ones.
So apparently, it isn’t offensive that God should mercifully save medium-sinful Steve Hays but it is beyond the pale that he should save a really bad sinner like Mao, Stalin, or an ISIS soldier.
Steve Hays could learn something from J.I. Packer. Though Packer is a Calvinist who believes that those who die outside Christ suffer eternal conscious torment, he also wrote this:
“No evangelical, I think, need hesitate to admit that in his heart of hearts he would like universalism to be true. Who can take pleasure in the thought of people being eternally lost? If you want to see folk damned, there is something wrong with you!”
Packer is right. Mr. Hays, there’s something wrong with you.
For further reading, check out my articles “The very worst reason to reject universalism” and “If you want to see folk damned, there is something wrong with you!“