In his newest book, THAT ALL SHALL BE SAVED, David Bentley Hart states that there will be those who, despite the most erudite of his theological and philosophical writings on the subject of Apokatastasis, simply will refuse to believe. The concept of God as Vengeful Punisher is deeply woven into the Western psyche, along with a generous helping of hell-is-your-destination condemnation for anyone who dares stray off the eschatological reservation.

Why is it so difficult to convince people that Universal Salvation, which existed in the first five centuries, is found strongly suggested in the Bible, is in line with the character of God? Simple. If you have been taught to believe in a God who willingly sends souls into the most egregious torments, if this has been pounded into your mind day and night until you live, eat, and breathe damnation, then you are going to look in fear at anything that might give you a front row seat in Dante’s torture chamber. You learn to walk quite gingerly around this God who looks to condemn, never sure when some miscreant thought, some oddball belief you are entertaining to see if true, will arouse His anger and He will turn on you in fury, either at the Judgment, or even in this life. Such was the suggestion by Calvinist apologists who were appalled at the conversion of Hank Hanegraaff, a noted Protestant apologist, to the Orthodox Church. When it was discovered shortly after his conversion that he has cancer, these same men gleefully pronounced this as God’s getting even with him for his apostasy from the real, true faith of Calvinism. No doubt they anticipate, along with Aquinas, the pleasure of looking over the parapets of heaven and watching Hanegraaff writhe in agony.

Western theological writings are full of such descriptions, from Dante’s vivid and obscene visions of hell to the depraved rantings of Fundamentalists, such as these Calvinists, who condemn everyone and everything they don’t like to eternal fire. It makes sense then that if you think that accepting God’s Universal Restoration will absolutely piss God off at you, assuring you of partaking of these torments, you will rouse up many resistances to the teaching.

After a great number of frustrating forays into the theological battlefield found on the Internet to attempt to defend this teaching from the numerous errors I see continually posted (such as the false idea that Universalism teaches that sinners go directly to heaven – a wretched lie and distortion of God’s justice), I am becoming convinced I would spend my time more wisely elsewhere. Point blank, the people I am having run ins with are not listening, have no interest in listening, and are probably scared out of their wits to oppose what their churches are teaching them. They no doubt believe I am some demon possessed wretch sent by the devil to trick them and send them to hell forever, which, of course, raises the interesting question that if God wills to save all (1 Timothy 2:4, etc) why would He allow such a deceiving spirit to roam the earth in the first place?

When I see something posted that is a complete distortion of  Universalism teaches, for some reason I feel compelled to enter the topic and correct things, trying to ameliorate the confusion.

It is not working.

Perhaps it is a blow to my ego, savage man that he is, that makes me want to push forward arguments, but honestly, if they will not believe someone who speaks with the theological and philosophical precision of David Bentley Hart, well who the heck do I think I am? I couldn’t carry his fountain pen on my best day (nor could any of his detractors, who appear to be loathe to take him on, having produced neither a substantive rebuttal of his book nor invited him to debate).

Nonetheless, for my dear readers, few and charmingly loyal as they are (thank you all for reading my simple patter!) I want to address something that particularly bothers me in this search for the truth. It is the incredible linguistic dishonesty used by those who disavow Apokatastasis.  It makes me walk away from my computer shaking my head.

This is the same problem we run into over and over again when people are not familiar with Greek syntax, the meaning of Greek words, etc. Let me give another example:Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

This verse is commonly referred to, along with the corollary verse, Matthew 18:6, to declare that anyone who offends, hurts, kills, etc a child is going to suffer a particularly egregious punishment. But is that what this verse is saying.

NOT
AT
ALL.

The Greek word used here is μικρός mikros. Does that word mean children? Absolutely not. We know this because a few verses prior, Jesus takes a little child in to his arms. The word for little child is παιδίον paidion, and it is used to denote an infant child. So what does micros mean?

Do you see the beginnings of the word “microscopic” there? Yes, it is an adjective used to describe something that is small or diminuative. Such as the disciples of the Lord, who were small in the eyes of the important Pharisees, who were diminuative in their infant faith. And the warning is to those who would offend (that is hurt, kill, martyr) those with the microscopic faith in Him, for in AD 70, women would resort to eating their own children during the Seige and Destruction of Jerusalem. Over a million Jews were slaughtered. Truly, it would have been better for them to have been drowned in the sea than to go through the horrors of the destruction they witnessed.

It’s more of the same with the word “aionios.”

And the Douay-Rheims is no better, mistranslating the word metanoia to mean “do penance” when that word means nothing of the sort.

This was posted  to someone who insists that because Jesus said “It would be better for that man had he not been born” when speaking of Judas, that this means that Judas is eternally lost. In the post, I linked to a post who quoted  a Greek scholar.   That also isn’t good enough. No, for the hellists with whom I am debating, it is their scholars who must be correct and our scholars are buffoons.  Here is a response from another participant:

Both. Can you show me any ancient commentator on Scripture who reads them the way you do?

With respect to “micros” and “padion,” the Bible often uses parallel words rather than repeating the same one. As a matter of fact, we do it in common speech all the time.

Can you imagine a Greek speaking mother telling her husband, “Bring the micros over to me so I can wash him.”  Honestly, I think he would regard her as being off her rocker. The word for “baby” is “paidion.” That is a specific word with a specific meaning, just as “adidios” is the specific word for “eternal” and not “aionios,” which means “age-long” or “age-lasting.”

Or take as a further example, the accusation of one of my interlocutors who claimed that I am using the word “love”  in a “univocal manner,” as if this is a bad thing. (Univocal – having only one possible meaning ). Well, of course it has only one meaning!!!  How does anyone with a straight face aver that torturing a sentient being capable of suffering forever and ever with neither and end in sight nor a goal of correction (which DBH correctly states is the goal of all punishment, the rehabilitation and restoration of the individual punished) is equivalent with love?  If that is so, then by that definition, Adolph Hitler was one of the most loving people to ever walk the face of the earth.

Does God use the Bible to trick us or to instruct us?  Were the Greek words used in the Bible specific to what He wished to teach us, or were they kinda loose and meeeeah, maybe they mean this or maybe they mean that, and what difference does it make anyway?  These same people who get upset at Protestants when they deny the word “IS” (such as “This IS my Body. This IS my Blood) and make it instead mean, “This represents my Body.” get completely bent out of shape when I have the audacity to demand fidelity to the exact meaning of a Greek text.  Oh, what a rare jewel consistency is!

This changing of specific meaning to words is  the kind of verbal flimflam one resorts to when one is cornered. In the famous words of Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word…….it means just what I choose it to mean!”

And once it means exactly what you wish it to mean, then you have grounds upon which you can insist that you are correct, and your opponents are wrong.

So the next time I am speaking with you and refer to the word “boy,” be very sure to ascertain that it is not a fish, a cat, or a bicycle I am referring to. After all, the word “boy,” like love, isn’t really univocal and could mean anything, couldn’t it?