Article by Paul Helm – With Conservative Biblical Universalist Response
University Of Liverpool
“Those who have held that all men will finally be saved have often believed that this follows logically from the character of God. They have held that since God is essentially and omnipotently loving it follows that he could not allow any human being to suffer an eternity of torments in hell. For such Christians there is a serious stumbling block, namely those sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels which unequivocally speak of an eternal separation between the saved and the damned. How often the sayings of Jesus say or imply this is open to dispute, but that some of them do (e.g. Matt 25:41, 46) is beyond question.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm begins with a mischaracterization. Conservative biblical universalists do not merely appeal to God’s love in isolation, but to the totality of Scripture’s testimony about God’s character and purposes. When Paul declares that God “will have all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4) and that Christ is the “Savior of all men” (1 Tim 4:10), we must take these declarations as seriously as any other biblical text. The Greek word “aion” and its derivatives, often translated as “eternal” or “everlasting,” actually means “age-lasting” or “pertaining to an age.” The same word describes both the “eternal” life of believers and the “eternal” punishment of the wicked, yet Scripture clearly teaches that death itself will be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). If death is destroyed, how can eternal conscious torment remain? The universalist reading harmonizes Jesus’ warnings about judgment with Paul’s explicit teaching that “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22).
“Faced with this evidence the universalist may deny its authenticity, regarding it, for example, as a later interpolation of the church. Alternatively he may claim that Jesus had not fully fought free of the teaching of the Judaism of his day. I shall not comment on the merits of these and several other approaches, but instead look at one particular suggestion that claims that in such sayings Jesus must be taken to be preaching rather than theologizing, endeavoring in an ‘existential’ situation to turn his hearers from their evil ways by issuing threats or warnings.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm creates a false dichotomy here. Conservative biblical universalists need not deny the authenticity of Jesus’ words nor claim He was culturally limited. Instead, we recognize that Jesus spoke of real judgment and real consequences for sin – judgment that is both purposeful and ultimately redemptive. The fire of Gehenna that Jesus warns about is the same purifying fire Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, where even those whose works are burned up “shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” God’s judgments throughout Scripture serve redemptive purposes: “When thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness” (Isaiah 26:9). The distinction between “preaching” and “theologizing” is artificial – Jesus’ warnings about judgment are both existentially urgent AND theologically true within God’s ultimate plan to reconcile all things to Himself (Col 1:20).
“One recent example of this approach can be found in the writings of John Hick. Although he thinks that there may be reason to doubt the authenticity of such sayings, he supposes for the sake of the argument that Jesus threatened eternal punishment. But he claims that such warnings or threats occurred in the context of personal admonition and exhortation.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
While Hick’s approach may be problematic, conservative biblical universalists take a different stance. We fully accept the authenticity of Jesus’ warnings while recognizing that divine threats and their ultimate fulfillment operate within God’s sovereign plan of restoration. Consider Jonah’s prophecy to Nineveh: “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4). This was an unconditional pronouncement, yet God relented when Nineveh repented. The threat was real, the potential destruction genuine, yet God’s ultimate purpose was redemption. Similarly, Jesus’ warnings about judgment are genuine threats that serve God’s redemptive purposes, driving sinners to repentance either in this age or through the refining judgments of the age to come.
Hick’s Position on Threats and Consistency
“Jesus was neither propounding a theological theory nor defining theological doctrines. He was preaching to contemporary men and women, warning and challenging them with vivid parables and images. He was standing with them in the flow of human life at a certain moment in time, trying to get them to wrench themselves round in the direction of their lives and open their hearts to one another as fellow children of the heavenly Father. In this situation he was in effect saying: If you go on like this, heedless of your neighbour, you will come to absolute disaster; for this way of living ends in spiritual self-destruction.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
This quote from Hick actually contains an important truth that Helm will subsequently mishandle. Jesus indeed warns of “spiritual self-destruction” – but destruction is not the same as eternal conscious torment. Throughout Scripture, the wages of sin is consistently described as death (Rom 6:23), destruction (2 Thess 1:9), and perishing (John 3:16). The biblical universalist recognizes that this destruction is real but not ultimate, for Christ came to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8) and to destroy death itself (2 Tim 1:10). The spiritual self-destruction Jesus warns against is the very condition from which Christ came to save humanity. As Paul declares, “God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all” (Rom 11:32).
“Professor Hick supports this by saying there is nothing incompatible about the statements ‘If you will not repent you will be eternally damned’ and ‘You will not be eternally damned’; and this seems to be correct. But contrary to what Professor Hick appears to think, in order for them to be logically consistent it is certainly not necessary that the first occur in a different context, and fulfill a different function, from the second. The question of context and purpose, of whether Jesus is preaching or theologizing, is irrelevant to the question of consistency. The conditional does not have to be a threat; it could be a prediction. There is nothing necessarily ‘existential’ about the statement, ‘If you eat unripe apples you will get stomachache’; and nevertheless it is perfectly consistent with the statement ‘No one will get stomachache.'”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm’s logical analysis here actually supports the universalist position more than he realizes. His observation about conditional statements is precisely correct – and this is why Jesus’ warnings about judgment can be both genuine and ultimately not eternally fulfilled. However, Helm misses the crucial biblical pattern: God’s threats of judgment consistently serve redemptive purposes. When God told Adam “in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen 2:17), Adam did not physically die that day. Was God’s threat empty? No – spiritual death entered, but God immediately began His redemptive plan. The conditional nature of divine warnings is seen throughout Scripture, from Nineveh to Israel’s repeated cycles of judgment and restoration. God declares through Ezekiel: “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezek 33:11).
The Question of Universalism Types
“So on the question of consistency Professor Hick seems to be correct. However there are other objections to his view which he does not consider and which raise serious difficulties for a universalist. For although the sentences ‘If you do not repent you will go to hell’ and ‘No one will go to hell’ are formally consistent, the first could not be uttered as a threat if the second were also uttered or if its truth were in some way known to the one to whom the first was uttered. So our question is, on universalistic assumptions, could Jesus threaten or warn against eternal hell?”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm raises an important question but makes an unwarranted assumption. He assumes that for a threat to be genuine, its ultimate fulfillment must be possible. But consider God’s dealings with Israel: He repeatedly threatened total destruction (Lev 26, Deut 28), yet always preserved a remnant and ultimately promised restoration. Were these threats disingenuous? Certainly not! They were genuine expressions of God’s holy wrath against sin, serving to bring about repentance and transformation. The conservative biblical universalist sees hell not as eternal conscious torment but as God’s severe mercy – the final means by which the stubborn will is broken and reformed. As C.S. Lewis noted (before rejecting universalism), “the gates of hell are locked from the inside” – but Christ holds the keys of death and hell (Rev 1:18) and will ultimately unlock every prison.
“In order to formulate objections clearly it is necessary to distinguish between two kinds of universalism. Let us call universalism which asserts, on whatever grounds, that no people can be finally lost ‘hard’ universalism. And let us call universalism which asserts that no people will in fact be lost ‘soft’ universalism.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm’s distinction between “hard” and “soft” universalism is useful but incomplete. Conservative biblical universalism represents a third option: that God has decreed the salvation of all through Christ’s victorious work, which will be accomplished through both mercy and judgment. This is neither “hard” (making damnation impossible) nor “soft” (merely hoping all will be saved), but rather “biblical” – grounded in God’s revealed will that all be saved (1 Tim 2:4), Christ’s accomplished work of reconciling all things (Col 1:20), and God’s ability to accomplish His purposes (Isa 46:10). The salvation of all is certain not because sin is impossible or punishment unreal, but because God’s love is relentless, His judgment remedial, and Christ’s victory complete.
“There is a corresponding distinction to be drawn between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ particularism. For the particularist who argues that some but not all men will be saved, the salvation of such men is due either to the will of God or to the will of men. But the parallelism between universalism and particularism is incomplete in that hard particularism is not entailed by the will of God—at least, I have been unable to find such a case in the literature. To find discussions of such questions it is almost essential to consult seventeenth century writers. Not even the most ardent supralapsarian, or the strongest believer in particular redemption, would argue that it is inconceivable, given the character of God, that all men should finally be saved.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm’s observation here is remarkably telling. Even the strictest Calvinists acknowledge that God COULD save all – the question is whether He WILL. But Scripture repeatedly declares God’s will in this matter: “The Lord is… not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet 3:9). If God wills all to be saved, and God’s will cannot be ultimately thwarted (as Calvinists affirm), then the conclusion is inescapable. The Reformed tradition’s own logic, when combined with Scripture’s clear testimony about God’s universal salvific will, points toward universal restoration. As the Calvinist theologian Karl Barth eventually recognized, if Christ is truly elected for all and rejected for all, then all are included in His election.
“Twisse could have argued both that God could have saved anyone without an atonement and that he could only save a limited number; but in fact he appears to argue that God could have saved all men (Nos nihil dubitarnus quin omnium hominurn salutem facile procurare posset deus [‘We do not doubt at all that God could easily procure the salvation of all men’]). John Owen, at one time Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford under Cromwell, though disagreeing with Twisse on the question of the necessity of the atonement, likewise argued that the decree to create the universe was an act of God’s freedom and the decree to save some was also an act of God’s freedom. Hence (presumably) God was free to save more (or fewer) than he did, and free to save all.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
These Reformed theologians correctly recognize God’s sovereign freedom to save all. The question then becomes: What has God actually revealed about His intentions? Scripture declares that Christ “is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Paul explicitly states that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Cor 5:19). The scope of Christ’s redemptive work is clearly universal in intent and accomplishment. The Reformed emphasis on God’s sovereignty, when coupled with the biblical testimony of God’s universal salvific will, leads naturally to the conclusion that God will indeed accomplish what He desires – the salvation of all humanity through Christ.
“Neither of these writers makes the point explicitly; it has to be dragged out of them by inference. B. B. Warfield is a little more explicit: ‘So far as the principles of sovereignty and particularism are concerned there is no reason why a Calvinist might not be a universalist in the most express meaning of that term, holding that each and every human soul shall be saved.’ Those who argue that the salvation of any is due to their free will must be soft universalists.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Warfield’s admission is crucial and devastating to Helm’s overall argument. If Calvinist principles of divine sovereignty are compatible with universalism, then the biblical universalist can affirm both human responsibility and ultimate universal salvation without logical contradiction. The conservative biblical universalist position maintains that human free will is real but not ultimate – it can resist God temporarily but not eternally. As Philippians 2:10-11 declares, EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. This is not mere external compliance but genuine acknowledgment, for “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor 12:3). God’s sovereignty ensures that His love will ultimately overcome all resistance.
Analysis of Hick’s Position
“Which version of universalism does Professor Hick espouse? It is not clear. As he presents the matter he notes that on one traditional view universalism follows from the divine attributes. If he accepts this argument consistently he is a hard universalist, for such attributes are necessary properties of God; and what they are alleged to entail, the final salvation of all men, is likewise going to be necessary; and therefore no one could finally be lost. On the other hand Professor Hick recognizes the problem that certain views of human freedom present for such a version of universalism, and this seems to take his position in the direction of ‘soft’ universalism; for he appears to hold that the threats could be ignored, but in fact will not be.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm’s analysis reveals his misunderstanding of how divine sovereignty and human freedom interact in the universalist framework. The conservative biblical universalist position transcends his hard/soft distinction by affirming that God’s essential nature as love (1 John 4:8) necessitates the ultimate salvation of all, while His wisdom determines the means – including genuine human freedom and real consequences for sin. God does not override human will but rather works through it, using even rebellion and judgment as instruments of eventual redemption. As Joseph told his brothers, “ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good” (Gen 50:20). What appears as tension between divine sovereignty and human freedom is resolved in God’s ability to work “all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph 1:11) while maintaining human responsibility.
“Whether we take Hick’s view about the threats to be a contribution to a hard or a soft universalism it can be argued that both have damaging objections to them if they intend to take seriously the idea that Jesus’ words are threats. An attempt will now be made to show this.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm’s forthcoming argument rests on a false premise – that divine threats must allow for the possibility of eternal failure to be genuine. But Scripture shows us a different pattern. God’s threats are genuine expressions of His holy opposition to sin, serving to accomplish His purposes of redemption. When God threatens judgment, He is not bluffing but expressing the reality of sin’s consequences. Yet these consequences serve His ultimate purpose of restoration. As Lamentations 3:31-33 declares, “For the Lord will not cast off for ever: But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies. For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.”
Section I – Soft Universalism Analysis
“First, I shall assess Professor Hick’s views considered as a form of soft universalism. The assumption of soft universalism, the view that all men will in fact be saved, although it allows us to treat the language of Jesus as genuinely threatening, does nothing to protect or defend the moral character of Jesus. An argument for soft universalism might be expressed as follows: (1) God desires the salvation of all men. (2) Those not saved by other means are threatened by God in order to be saved. (3) All those threatened will finally heed the threats. (4) Therefore all men will finally be saved.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm’s formulation misrepresents the biblical universalist position. A more accurate representation would be: (1) God wills the salvation of all men (1 Tim 2:4), (2) Christ died for all and reconciled all things to Himself (Col 1:20), (3) God’s judgments serve redemptive purposes to bring about repentance (Rom 11:32), (4) God’s purposes cannot fail (Isa 46:10), (5) Therefore all will ultimately be saved through Christ, some through faith in this life, others through the purifying judgments of the age to come. This framework maintains both the genuineness of human choice and the certainty of God’s ultimate victory over sin and death.
“Let us begin an examination of this argument by considering the notion of a threat. For what a person says to another person to count as a threat, for a person to be threatened, certain conditions are necessary. A chief one of these conditions is that the person threatened must believe that what is being said to him constitutes a threat, that is, that there is a real possibility that the unpleasantness being threatened will actually come about.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm is correct that threats must be believed to be effective, but he wrongly assumes that universalism negates the reality of the threat. The biblical universalist affirms that the threatened judgment is absolutely real and will indeed come upon the unrepentant. The difference is that we understand this judgment as remedial rather than merely retributive. The “unpleasantness” of hell is not diminished in the universalist view – it remains a terrible reality. But like a surgeon’s knife that cuts to heal, God’s judgments serve to break the stubborn will and bring about ultimate repentance. The threat is real, the judgment is real, but the purpose is redemptive.
“But if Jesus intended to threaten, and did not merely wish to be taken to be threatening, then his words must be accompanied by the intention to carry out what is threatened should no one pay attention to them. If Jesus really and seriously threatened eternal hell for the impenitent in order to warn them of their impending fate then it must follow that he would recognize the consistency of sending the impenitent to hell should they remain impenitent. A threat that the threatener is unwilling to carry out is hollow and not a threat.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm creates a false dilemma. Jesus is absolutely willing to carry out judgment on the impenitent – and Scripture indicates He will. The universalist position is not that threats are empty, but that the judgment threatened serves a redemptive purpose and achieves its goal. Consider a parent who threatens to discipline a rebellious child – the threat is genuine, the parent is fully willing to carry it out, and if necessary will do so. But the purpose is correction, not endless retribution. Similarly, God’s judgments are real and will be executed, but they aim at restoration. As Hebrews 12:6 states, “whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.”
“If the reply to this is that Jesus did not really threaten, nor really intend to threaten, but that he merely gave the impression to his hearers that he was threatening, then this leaves the difficulty that it would make Jesus guilty of intentionally misleading his hearers. In any case it would substantially change the interpretation of what Jesus was doing according to Professor Hick.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Conservative biblical universalists completely agree – Jesus’ threats were genuine, not deceptive. The judgment He warned about is real and terrible. But Helm fails to consider that genuine threats can serve redemptive purposes. Throughout the Old Testament, God genuinely threatened Israel with destruction, carried out severe judgments, yet always with the ultimate goal of restoration. Jesus’ warnings follow this same pattern. He genuinely threatens judgment because judgment will genuinely come upon the unrepentant. But this judgment, like all of God’s acts, serves His ultimate purpose of reconciling all things to Himself (Col 1:20).
“The point can be put in terms of the notion of a deterrent. On Professor Hick’s view, Jesus’ words ought to be considered as a deterrent to his hard-hearted hearers, having the intention of turning them away from their impenitent course of action. But to be intended as a deterrent an action must be genuinely threatening.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm’s deterrent analogy actually supports the universalist position when properly understood. A deterrent can be both genuinely threatening AND ultimately redemptive. Consider prison systems that genuinely punish but aim at rehabilitation. The threat of imprisonment is real, the punishment is real, but the goal is restoration to society. Similarly, hell serves as both a deterrent and, when necessary, a means of ultimate correction. The conservative biblical universalist sees hell not as God’s final word but as His severe mercy – the ultimate measure to bring about repentance in those who resist all other means.
“To say that if the threat of punishment is genuine then there is a real possibility of it being carried out is equivalent to saying that there is a possible world in which it is carried out, a possible set of circumstances in which a person remains impenitent and suffers for it.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm’s philosophical framework here is flawed. He assumes “suffering for impenitence” must mean “suffering eternally without possibility of redemption.” But Scripture presents a different picture. People will indeed remain impenitent and suffer for it – the biblical universalist affirms this completely. The question is whether that suffering is endless or serves a redemptive purpose. When Paul says God “hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all” (Rom 11:32), he shows that even the state of unbelief serves God’s ultimate purpose of showing mercy to all. The possibility of suffering for impenitence is real; the impossibility is that God’s redemptive purposes would ultimately fail.
“When Jesus threatened hell what precisely was he threatening? One necessary condition of something’s being hell is that it involves a state of unrelieved and inescapable suffering. It is suffering without termination, unjustified by the achieving of some purified or restored state for which the suffering is a necessary condition.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Here Helm makes an crucial but unsubstantiated assertion. He defines hell as necessarily involving “suffering without termination” and explicitly excludes any redemptive purpose. But where does Scripture require this definition? The Greek words Gehenna, Hades, and Tartarus – all translated as “hell” – don’t carry this meaning inherently. Gehenna was literally the Valley of Hinnom where garbage was burned – fire that consumed, not preserved. When Jesus speaks of Gehenna, His hearers would think of destruction and purification, not eternal preservation in torment. The biblical testimony is that Christ holds “the keys of hell and of death” (Rev 1:18) and that ultimately death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14) – destroyed, not perpetuated. Hell is indeed terrible suffering for sin, but Scripture indicates it serves God’s ultimate purpose of reconciliation.
“If it is an adverse reflection upon God’s moral character (and inconsistent with his purposes) that some people should suffer in hell then it is an adverse reflection on God’s moral character that he, or his spokesmen, or his Son, should seriously threaten men with hell.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
This argument contains a hidden assumption – that hell as Helm defines it (eternal conscious torment without redemptive purpose) is the only possible understanding. Conservative biblical universalists don’t argue that ANY suffering in hell reflects adversely on God’s character. Rather, we argue that ENDLESS, PURPOSELESS suffering would contradict God’s revealed character as love (1 John 4:8) and His stated will that all be saved (1 Tim 2:4). God can genuinely threaten and execute judgment that serves His redemptive purposes without any compromise to His moral character. Indeed, it would be more problematic for God’s character if He allowed sin to go unjudged or failed to achieve His stated purpose of reconciling all things to Himself.
“What is the difference, so far as the character of the threatener is concerned, between a successful and an unsuccessful threat? Any difference between the two situations is solely due to the way the impenitent chooses to respond to the threat.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm’s analysis here misses the crucial point about God’s sovereignty and wisdom. While human response is real and significant, God’s ultimate purposes cannot be thwarted. The difference between a human threatener and God is that God knows all outcomes and has the power and wisdom to achieve His purposes through both human cooperation and resistance. As Proverbs 21:1 states, “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.” God’s threats take into account human freedom while ensuring His ultimate purposes are achieved. This is not coercion but the mysterious working of divine sovereignty with human responsibility.
“If there is nothing Jesus can do to guarantee that any threat has a successful outcome in dissuading a person from a course of impenitence. If there is, then to that extent the threat is not a serious one.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
This represents a false dichotomy that fails to account for God’s providential working through time. The biblical universalist position is that God has many means at His disposal – not just threats, but also mercy, judgment, suffering, revelation, and ultimately the irresistible revelation of His love in Christ. If threats alone don’t succeed in this life, God has the ages to come in which to work. As Paul indicates, some are “saved; yet so as by fire” (1 Cor 3:15). The threat is serious because the judgment is real, but God’s arsenal for bringing about repentance extends beyond the threat itself. His love is relentless and His purposes cannot fail.
“If it is no adverse reflection upon God’s moral character that men freely chose evil then it is no additional adverse reflection upon Jesus’ character that men choose to remain impenitent and go to hell in accordance with his threats.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm conflates temporary permission of evil with eternal abandonment to evil. Scripture teaches that God temporarily permits evil for greater purposes – to demonstrate His justice, mercy, and power to overcome evil with good. But this is vastly different from eternally preserving evil in the form of eternally impenitent souls in eternal conscious torment. The biblical testimony is that God will ultimately be “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28) and that every knee will bow and every tongue confess Christ as Lord (Phil 2:10-11). The temporary permission of evil serves God’s greater purpose of demonstrating His glory in overcoming it entirely.
“If this is so then there is nothing to be gained, in terms of the moral character of Jesus, in insisting upon soft universalism, provided it is allowed that he seriously threatened hell. Jesus is not morally better if he threatens and as a matter of fact all men heed his threats and avoid hell than if only some men heed and avoid hell, or indeed if no men heed and avoid hell.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm’s conclusion only follows if we accept his premise that hell is necessarily eternal conscious torment without redemptive purpose. The conservative biblical universalist argues that Jesus’ moral character is vindicated not merely by threatening judgment, but by the PURPOSE and OUTCOME of that judgment. If Jesus threatens judgment that ultimately serves to redeem and restore all, this is vastly different morally from threatening eternal torment with no redemptive purpose. The issue isn’t whether Jesus threatens hell, but what hell IS and what it accomplishes in God’s economy. Scripture consistently presents God’s judgments as serving His redemptive purposes, culminating in the reconciliation of all things.
Objections and Responses
“Let us now consider several objections to this argument. The first could be put as follows: in considering the moral character of Jesus in the light of his serious threat of hell to his hearers, no account has been taken of his motive in threatening, and this is relevant to the assessment of his moral character. For he threatens, it might be said, with the motive or desire of seeing the impenitent change their ways.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
The motive absolutely matters, and Helm’s dismissal of it is problematic. Jesus’ motive in threatening judgment is consistently presented in Scripture as redemptive. “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (Luke 9:56). When Jesus weeps over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44) before pronouncing judgment, we see His heart – judgment grieves Him, but is necessary for ultimate redemption. The conservative biblical universalist sees Jesus’ threats as motivated by love that will not let sinners go, even if it requires severe measures. This is fundamentally different from threats motivated by retribution alone.
“It might be objected, secondly, that it is preposterous to suppose that a situation in which a threat is made and not carried out, and an identical situation in which a threat is made and is carried out, are morally equivalent.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
This objection has merit that Helm too quickly dismisses. The moral quality of an action includes its outcomes, especially when the agent has perfect foreknowledge. If God knows His threats will ultimately lead to universal repentance and restoration (whether in this age or through the judgments of ages to come), this is morally distinct from threats that result in eternal torment. The biblical universalist position is that God’s threats WILL be carried out on all who don’t repent in this life, but that this judgment itself becomes a means of bringing about ultimate repentance. The moral character of the threat includes both its genuineness AND its redemptive purpose and outcome.
“The third objection has to do with Jesus’ foreknowledge. It might be said that what makes Jesus’ situation unique is that he threatens the impenitent with hell knowing that all those threatened will in fact change their ways, that his threat will be successful.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm misunderstands the universalist position here. We don’t claim Jesus knew His threats alone would convert everyone immediately. Rather, Jesus knew that through the combination of warnings in this life and judgments in the next, all would ultimately be brought to repentance. Some respond to threats and turn in this life; others will require the actual experience of judgment to break their rebellion. Jesus’ foreknowledge encompasses not just immediate responses but God’s entire redemptive plan through the ages. This maintains both the genuineness of the threats and the certainty of ultimate universal restoration.
“A fourth objection might be that the hearers of Jesus took his sayings to be threats because they were ignorant of the outcome of the future, including their own future decisions.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
The hearers’ perception of threats as genuine was correct – they were genuine threats of real judgment. The biblical universalist doesn’t claim the threats were only perceived as real; they WERE real. What the hearers may not have fully understood was the ultimately redemptive purpose of the threatened judgment. Just as Joseph’s brothers genuinely suffered for their sin against him but were ultimately restored and blessed, so God’s judgments are genuinely painful but ultimately redemptive. The threat is real, the judgment is real, but the end is restoration – “where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Rom 5:20).
“Fifthly, it might be argued that the whole point about the threats is that the conditional propositions expressing the threats are neither true nor false.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
This philosophical dodge, which Helm rightly rejects from Robinson, attempts to escape the logical implications of biblical statements. The conservative biblical universalist has no need for such evasions. We affirm that Jesus’ conditional statements are true: IF you don’t repent, you WILL face judgment. We also affirm Paul’s declarations that God will ultimately reconcile all things. These are not contradictory but complementary truths. The judgment is the means by which the recalcitrant are ultimately brought to repentance. Both the conditional threat and the ultimate outcome are true within God’s redemptive plan.
Section II – Hard Universalism
“Let us now consider, more briefly, Professor Hick’s thesis interpreted as a case of hard universalism. As we have noted, there are elements in what Professor Hick says that make it plausible to suppose that he is sympathetic towards hard universalism. He says that God has made man for himself such that ‘the inherent gravitation of our being is towards him’—that is, there is a divine structuring of human nature such that all men will finally be saved.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
The conservative biblical universalist need not adopt “hard universalism” as Helm defines it. We don’t argue that damnation is metaphysically impossible, but rather that God has revealed His intention and ability to save all through Christ. The “inherent gravitation” toward God that Hick mentions is better understood as the image of God in humanity that, though marred by sin, cannot be completely destroyed. As Augustine said, “Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.” This restlessness doesn’t make damnation impossible, but it does mean that rebellion against our true nature and purpose cannot satisfy eternally. Eventually, through God’s judgments and mercies, all will come to recognize and embrace their true good in God.
“But if it is inconceivable that any human being should finally be lost then however the language of Jesus is to be interpreted it cannot be regarded as genuinely threatening since as we noted earlier for a threat to be genuinely threatening there must be the possibility of the threat being carried out.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm continues to conflate “the threat being carried out” with “eternal conscious torment.” The conservative biblical universalist affirms that threats of judgment will indeed be carried out on the impenitent. The judgment is real and terrible. What we deny is that this judgment is eternal conscious torment with no possibility of redemption. The threats are genuine because the judgment is genuine; but the judgment serves God’s redemptive purposes. Consider Sodom and Gomorrah – utterly destroyed by God’s judgment, yet Ezekiel 16:53-55 speaks of their eventual restoration. The threat was genuine, the judgment was carried out, yet restoration remains God’s ultimate goal.
“Furthermore, if Jesus’ words are taken in the context of hard universalism then it follows that the ‘threats’ of Jesus are not so much threats as guides driving and guiding people along the path of inevitable universal salvation.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
This is a false characterization. Even if ultimate salvation is certain (through God’s sovereign will and Christ’s victorious work), the path to that salvation may include genuine judgment for those who resist. The certainty of the ultimate destination doesn’t negate the reality of the journey. Israel’s eventual entry into the Promised Land was certain by God’s promise, yet a generation died in the wilderness under God’s judgment. The threats were real, the judgment was real, yet God’s ultimate purpose was achieved. Similarly, Jesus’ threats describe real judgments that serve God’s certain purpose of universal restoration.
Conclusion
“In this paper I have attempted to argue two things: (i) On the assumption of soft universalism, if it is immoral to punish the impenitent in hell then it is immoral genuinely to threaten such punishment. (I have not argued that it is immoral to punish the finally impenitent in hell.) So on this argument soft universalism does not require or support the interpretation of Jesus’ language given by Professor Hick.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm’s conclusion rests on a fundamental misunderstanding. Conservative biblical universalists don’t argue that punishing the impenitent is immoral per se, but that ETERNAL punishment without redemptive purpose would be inconsistent with God’s revealed character and purposes. Temporary, remedial judgment – even severe judgment – is consistent with God’s character as both just and merciful. The threats are genuine, the punishment is real, but the purpose is restoration. This position maintains the integrity of Jesus’ warnings while affirming the ultimate triumph of God’s love and the complete victory of Christ over sin and death.
“(ii) If on the other hand hard universalism is assumed then the so-called threats of Jesus cannot be genuine threats since to be a genuine threat there must be the possibility of the threat actually being carried out.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
This conclusion also fails because it assumes threats can only be genuine if they could result in eternal conscious torment. The conservative biblical universalist maintains that threats of judgment are genuine and will be carried out, but that these judgments serve God’s redemptive purposes revealed throughout Scripture. The possibility of experiencing God’s judgment is real; the impossibility is that God’s redemptive purposes would ultimately fail or that Christ’s victory would be incomplete.
“So if the doctrines of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ universalism are exhaustive of universalism as such (as they appear to be) then the Christian universalist interpretation of the words of Jesus as constituting a threat is impaled on the horns of a dilemma. If such a universalist opts for ‘soft’ universalism Jesus’ moral character is on exactly the same footing as a threatener of hell as it would be as a consigner of the impenitent to hell. If he opts for ‘hard’ universalism Jesus’ threats cannot be considered to be genuine.”
Conservative Biblical Universalist Response:
Helm’s supposed dilemma dissolves when we recognize that his categories are inadequate. Conservative biblical universalism transcends his hard/soft distinction by affirming both genuine human freedom and responsibility AND God’s sovereign ability to achieve His revealed purposes. Jesus’ threats are genuine warnings of real judgment that will come upon the impenitent. But these judgments, like all of God’s acts, serve His ultimate purpose of reconciling all things to Himself through Christ. The moral character of Jesus is vindicated not by eternal torment but by the complete success of His mission to “seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10) – ultimately, all humanity. As Paul triumphantly declares, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22). This is not philosophical speculation but biblical hope grounded in the character of God and the victory of Christ.
Final Reflection from a Conservative Biblical Universalist Perspective
Paul Helm’s article, while philosophically rigorous, fundamentally misunderstands the conservative biblical universalist position. He creates false dichotomies between genuine threats and redemptive purposes, between real judgment and ultimate restoration. The Scripture presents a God who judges sin severely but always with redemptive intent – “For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men” (Lam 3:33).
The conservative biblical universalist takes seriously both God’s holiness that requires judgment of sin AND His love that will not rest until all are reconciled. We affirm that Jesus’ warnings of judgment are genuine and will be fulfilled, but we understand these judgments within the larger biblical narrative of God’s unrelenting pursuit of His creation. When Paul declares that God “will have all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4) and that God “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph 1:11), we must conclude that God’s will for universal salvation will be accomplished.
The threats of judgment are real because sin is real and God’s holiness demands justice. But the judgment serves love’s purpose – to break down every barrier, overcome every resistance, and ultimately bring every knee to bow and every tongue to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:10-11). This is not empty hope but biblical faith grounded in the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ, who declared, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12:32).
© 2010 – 2025, Matthew. All rights reserved.
