Great video as usual. ECT is thankfully declining because it is fear-based which is not the gospel way. Conditional Immortality fits a rather minimalist hermeneutic. Universalism does have both compelling scriptural and philosophical grounds. FYI NT Wright said in an interview “I am not a universalist but I think God might be.”
I really appreciate your videos and your book reviews. I'm going through a very similar process as yourself. I grew up under a very fundamental evangelical church and my Sunday School teacher was very strictly a Calvinist and taught predestination salvation theology. Even at a young age, I never quite took to that doctrine and always leaned more towards Arminian approach. However, the eternal conscious torment type of hell was deeply ingrained in my psyche. However, after growing up and having kids of my own, I started questioning that understanding of hell. I simply can't imagine that a loving God, who is to be our Father in Heaven, would willingly condemn His children to eternal torture. Regardless of how rebellious my children may become, I would never willingly place them in a state of punishment that is eternally painful with no hope of rehabilitation. I would want my children to learn and grow and I will always want to reconcile with my children. I'm currently in your same state of mind, where I'm very hopeful that Universalism is the reality. Not that God must save everyone, but that an infinite father's infinite love will desire to save every one of his children. At the same time, I've completely abandoned the idea that the Bible is inerrant and should be read literally. But I'm struggling with where to draw the line between literal reading, historical context reading, and figurative reading. Oh, and I just finished your "what is fundamentalism" video. There was another trigger point that moved me away from evangelism. It was when the churches almost went all-in for a certain political figure and abandoned any pretense of not pursuing a theocracy.
I was introduced to Universalism by Mr. David Bentley Hart myself, and I still don't have the courage to be a confident universalist, but his book certainly accomplished one thing: I know that God loves me more then I could possibly imagine and I must trust in Him and love Him more then anything.
Surprised by Hope was such an important book. That book and Simply Good News but NT Wright were totally paradigm shifting for my faith when it came to the afterlife. The other theological books I got a ton out of were “Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God” by Zahnd, “A More Christlike Word” by Brad Jersak, and I’m currently reading “the Evangelical Universalist” by Gregory MacDonald (Robin Parry). I still have to read “Holy Hell”, “Defending Democracy From its Christian Enemies”, and “God Isn’t In Control”.
Thank you Joel for a very thought provoking explanation of your journey "thru hell". A whole hell of a lot of your story, descriptions, and explanations/analysis resonated deeply with me. This is a very helpful consideration of this theme, and conundrum (for me). I can imagine evangelical responses that chafe against anything less than ECT arguing that the need or urgency of evangelism is undercut by anything less than ECT. That would seem to bring us back to the question of what the gospel is and what is God seeking to accomplish (for many it seems to be totally subsumed under hell avoidance and heaven gained as you yourself observed). Might that be worth exploring in greater depth? I know that for me a major turning point occurred when an understanding was gained about the kingdom of God and all it entails which goes considerably beyond "getting saved" and "going to heaven."
I’ve been on a very similar journey with this doctrine and I’ve landed on conditional immortality/annihilationism. I think the universalists’ argument about freedom is interesting. I wonder, though if they are making a distinction between freedom of will and freedom from bondage to sin. Great show, I’m really enjoying this series.
5 месяцев назад+1
Thanks for sharing your journey. Something that would go against your conclusion, IMO, is that we see God in Scripture hardening people who doesn't want him in their life, so that the lines might be even clearer. I see God wooing people to love Him, and doing the extra mile, but leaving freedom to resist it. It's a mystery why people would do that, but pride and desire of independence gets in the way... What do you think?
Have you ever considered hell as more of a symbolic reference to a very real state of consciousness while incarnate? I went to hell when I was 20 years old and did not emerge until I was 30. It seemed like an eternity while I was there, though. Years later, I'm 51 now, I read Peter Kingsley's Catafalque and it transported me directly back to hell for about 48 hours. Hell is the total loss of free will, hope, and love. Hell burns the mind like flames. It feels like your mind is on fire when you are in hell. I don't think of hell as a real place. It is ultimately illusory. But the experience of hell is very real in the minds of the damned.
Conditional Immortality view is the most scripturally based. Universalism is based on philosophy that then uses Scripture to prove it. The atonement study in "Lamb of the Free" speaks about our participation in His death and resurrection. How is this participation one-sided with God doing all the work? The blood of the lamb is applied to the doorpost, but the participant still has to eat the lamb. Universalism says differently.
@@JoelWentz I have frustrations with people who say that they are hopeful universalist but don’t really flush out what that would actually look like as a doctrine except from a philosophical standpoint
@@claytonhomewood3994is your frustration caused by their lack of commitment to universalism no holds barred? Or by their commitment to any sort of eschatology that looks forward to the redepmtion of all things?
I don't think NT Wright is an annihilationist. His understanding is cast through an image bearing (human) as you say and a resurrection perspective. i.e. There will be a (general) resurrection of the just and the unjust (Acts 24.15), though believers will be raised by the Spirit, bearing the image of the second Adam.
Wright’s views are very strange on this subject. If I read him correctly, he essentially believes that those who are outside the kingdom of God will become progressively less and less human. I don’t know what he considers the end result to be, for this phenomenon. Even though I have great respect for him, I honestly believe that his view has the least support for it in scripture.
Take it for what it's worth but I think the only thing that can 'force' God (as you put it) is His very essence. In other words, God must be God according to His nature.
Why doesn't that make sense? I don't think Annihilationism is talking about a quick and painless erasure from reality for the annihilated. People would probably still be punished. "Some receive few blows, some receive many" and all that.
I'm with DBH, and see some truth in his jibe that hopeful universalists are really hoping that God is at least as compassionate as they are. And at the end with your "Let God be God" idea you skirt too close to the "Good is what(ever) God wills". My background started as a JW, so very prejudiced against hell, but then after conversion I became Calvinist in my thinking, and I think that growing up with what I still consider to be a correct view of freedom makes it natural for me to dismiss the idea of Universal Salvation as God somehow forcing himself upon people. DBH handles this well, as do you in your exposition. Obviously a lot of emotive arguments against hell as ECT are removed by annihilationism, as also the quite widespread view promoted by CSLewis in The Great Divorce and the standard view of non Universalist Orthodox namely that we all go to the same place but for some it is bliss but for others misery, usually coupled with the insistence that the Damned do not wish to cease to exist. For all that, it still ends with Adam's sin having much wider reach than Christ's sacrifice, and most non-Universalist positions do end up with the rather bizarre notion that many, and quite possibly the majority of those in Bliss are infants dying or being aborted. To counter the normal Calvinist view that very few are brought to saving faith most (even in Evo circles) lower the bar to salvation so much as to play so fast and loose with the Scripture that they may as well go the whole hog and become universalists. I think what holds most people back is that there has not been a convincing worked out view of exactly how it all works. I am evaluating two from consistent biblical conservatives, but they are not obvious. They work on the idea that The Redeemed Church are those who rule as Priests and Kings with Christ in the restored earth in which all are raised and over time are led to belief. However, at the end, who knows? Maybe God intends us to find truth through emotion more than intellect, and once you have grasped the vision that none of God's creation is created for nought, much less for torment, you can't go back.
25:32 IMO there is one aspect of ECT that is overlooked. That is how God would 'feel' about people who continue for all eternity suffering for their sin, possibly even sinning for all eternity as well. God responds to peoples sin with wrath and grief. Wrath because He is holy and just, grief because He loves sinners. Given God's wrath and grief over sinners, it is not only the people punished for there sins who endure conscious torment. It is a condition that God would bind Himself to for all eternity. He would eternally experience wrath and grief if he doesn't resolve the problem. This is a bit like an eternal prison. I suspect no being in existence has more at stake than God Himself if he does not do away with sin and death, the suffering of His creatures altogether.
This is so important! We become so self-absorbed with our own experience that we would neglect God’s experience if it gets in the way of resolving our own dilemma.
John tells unequivocally that God is Love (not love but....). Paul clearly defines Love for us and ends with Love never fails. God's desire is that all should saved (Peter & Paul clearly state this). Jesus said 'if I be lifted up I will draw all Mankind to myself'. The Baptist proclaimed 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the Sin of the World' and the Angel announced 'I bring you glad tidings of great joy that shall be for all people'. At the cross the wrath of God (which is a manifestation of his Love) was demonstrated with regard to Sin and Death and his Mercy shown when Jesus prayed 'Father forgive them they know not what they do'. Universal Reconciliation is writ large through the Bible and that's why the Gospel really is Good News. Colossians1v15-20, Romans 11v32-36. Grace and Peace.
I've had similar thoughts about fear not being an effective motivation. Scripture itself tells us fear is not a good motivator. At some point I fell hard for the language in Jeremiah 31:3, "The Lord has appeared of old to me, saying: "Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore with Lovingkindness I have drawn you." ..... It is not fear of hell that effectively draws us to the Lord, but rather His lovingkindness. I’m not as concerned with heaven being a selfish motivation. Because I think what is most glorious about heaven is the presence of God. And since He created us for Himself, this isn’t selfish as much as it’s by design. I’m not sure if you meant to suggest that philosophical reflection is equal to scripture. That’s dangerous - God tells us His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways. Isaiah 55:8-9. I carefully consider both paths here … A) God is knowable. We cannot throw knowledge to the wayside if God is knowable…. But on the other hand B) that knowledge has to submit to scripture ultimately if Isaiah 55 is true. Eve made the mistake of prioritizing her philosophy of knowing good vs evil…. And it was perhaps the worst choice within all of humanity. I love what you offer at the end, regarding standards outside of God to which God must adhere. I agree wholeheartedly. But I would challenge, isn’t that what you do when you say God must be recognizably good? *to mankind* ? What if God in His goodness thought it was good to justify all opposition to his goodness, without any offering of redemption? Because it is justice in response to opposition to Him - the source of all goodness - would this not be good? What if God in His goodness desires to reveal His nature to His creation -- His mercy, His justice, His goodness in all of His attributes? What if God decides that mercy is good, but it can only be known or revealed against a backdrop of justice, which is also good? It is scripture where God has *revealed* himself - His love, His holiness, His justice, His power, His faithfulness. When we get caught up in our imaginings of great-making properties, we risk not prioritizing what God says is great about Himself. What God says is good about Himself. Does universalism not minimize the cross? If the cross is minimized, if the cross could have been avoidable, unnecessary…. If any amount of temporary torment could have accomplished what Jesus could … It seems to be a different gospel. Jesus says His blood seals the covenant between God and His people, Matt 26:28… Any added salvation in the afterlife would be outside of this covenant and extra-biblical. Universalism just isn’t the expression of God most consistent with what is revealed.
I can’t see how God is subject to anything morally outside of himself. Is this not impossible. If God is not his own moral frame of reverence- divine command theory, then is he even Divine?Is there an ought from the is? Isn’t it now the supernatural fallacy? Sure, we better do as God wishes, but he can, if it’s in his nature, send us to hell if he sees fit. It becomes a might makes right argument. It’s no longer right makes might argument.
@@chriswest8389 in my estimation, it is only a might makes right argument if the might of God is more powerful than the just-ness of His righteousness. All of humanity craves justice. It’s a craving that has established and overturned governments throughout time. People are willing to give their lives for it, deeming it so right and good. We crave it… until we are its subject, and then we pit it against all else we can imagine is good.
Responding to "Does universalism not minimize the cross? If the cross is minimized, if the cross could have been avoidable, unnecessary…. If any amount of temporary torment could have accomplished what Jesus could … It seems to be a different gospel." Purgatorial universalism does not view the temporary torment as accomplishing anything in terms of the ultimate fate of people. That is, it is not about paying for sins. It is a matter of purification. Even in this earthly life sanctification is a process. It does not happen at once.
@@warrenroby6907 hebrews 9:14 says "How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God."... So you are comparing purgatorial universalism to that which the cross of Christ does. The cross of Christ doesn't just pay for our sins, it purifies our sins, it does all the things that make us justified, clothed in the righteousness of Jesus. (sanctification is a different thing, it is not the essential of what makes us worthy for heaven.) So thus, a secondary option that would accomplish the purpose of the cross & render it unnecessary.
@@Shark_fishing I agree that justification and sanctification are separate things. The Hebrews verse you cite talks about purifying the "conscience" not sins. And the point is to stop "dead works." One of the things which attracted me to universalism (or the term I much prefer, ultimate reconciliation) is that it accords with all the strong exhortations to good works (seen especially in Paul). It makes sense of "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." We do good works out of gratitude and because we are enabled by the Holy Spirit. There are many places, in the OT and NT, where it is said that we will be judged for our works. We will be saved by Christ's great work, but what we do in this life still counts.
Great video as usual. ECT is thankfully declining because it is fear-based which is not the gospel way. Conditional Immortality fits a rather minimalist hermeneutic. Universalism does have both compelling scriptural and philosophical grounds. FYI NT Wright said in an interview “I am not a universalist but I think God might be.”
That’s a great quote.
I really appreciate your videos and your book reviews. I'm going through a very similar process as yourself. I grew up under a very fundamental evangelical church and my Sunday School teacher was very strictly a Calvinist and taught predestination salvation theology. Even at a young age, I never quite took to that doctrine and always leaned more towards Arminian approach. However, the eternal conscious torment type of hell was deeply ingrained in my psyche.
However, after growing up and having kids of my own, I started questioning that understanding of hell. I simply can't imagine that a loving God, who is to be our Father in Heaven, would willingly condemn His children to eternal torture. Regardless of how rebellious my children may become, I would never willingly place them in a state of punishment that is eternally painful with no hope of rehabilitation. I would want my children to learn and grow and I will always want to reconcile with my children.
I'm currently in your same state of mind, where I'm very hopeful that Universalism is the reality. Not that God must save everyone, but that an infinite father's infinite love will desire to save every one of his children.
At the same time, I've completely abandoned the idea that the Bible is inerrant and should be read literally. But I'm struggling with where to draw the line between literal reading, historical context reading, and figurative reading.
Oh, and I just finished your "what is fundamentalism" video. There was another trigger point that moved me away from evangelism. It was when the churches almost went all-in for a certain political figure and abandoned any pretense of not pursuing a theocracy.
I was introduced to Universalism by Mr. David Bentley Hart myself, and I still don't have the courage to be a confident universalist, but his book certainly accomplished one thing: I know that God loves me more then I could possibly imagine and I must trust in Him and love Him more then anything.
Surprised by Hope was such an important book. That book and Simply Good News but NT Wright were totally paradigm shifting for my faith when it came to the afterlife. The other theological books I got a ton out of were “Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God” by Zahnd, “A More Christlike Word” by Brad Jersak, and I’m currently reading “the Evangelical Universalist” by Gregory MacDonald (Robin Parry). I still have to read “Holy Hell”, “Defending Democracy From its Christian Enemies”, and “God Isn’t In Control”.
I just discovered your channel and am so excited to hear more!
I am loving these videos Joel!
Your journey is extremely interesting and helpful for so many people. Thanks for sharing in this way.
Thank you Joel for a very thought provoking explanation of your journey "thru hell". A whole hell of a lot of your story, descriptions, and explanations/analysis resonated deeply with me. This is a very helpful consideration of this theme, and conundrum (for me). I can imagine evangelical responses that chafe against anything less than ECT arguing that the need or urgency of evangelism is undercut by anything less than ECT. That would seem to bring us back to the question of what the gospel is and what is God seeking to accomplish (for many it seems to be totally subsumed under hell avoidance and heaven gained as you yourself observed). Might that be worth exploring in greater depth? I know that for me a major turning point occurred when an understanding was gained about the kingdom of God and all it entails which goes considerably beyond "getting saved" and "going to heaven."
I’ve been on a very similar journey with this doctrine and I’ve landed on conditional immortality/annihilationism. I think the universalists’ argument about freedom is interesting. I wonder, though if they are making a distinction between freedom of will and freedom from bondage to sin.
Great show, I’m really enjoying this series.
Thanks for sharing your journey. Something that would go against your conclusion, IMO, is that we see God in Scripture hardening people who doesn't want him in their life, so that the lines might be even clearer. I see God wooing people to love Him, and doing the extra mile, but leaving freedom to resist it. It's a mystery why people would do that, but pride and desire of independence gets in the way... What do you think?
Have you ever considered hell as more of a symbolic reference to a very real state of consciousness while incarnate? I went to hell when I was 20 years old and did not emerge until I was 30. It seemed like an eternity while I was there, though. Years later, I'm 51 now, I read Peter Kingsley's Catafalque and it transported me directly back to hell for about 48 hours. Hell is the total loss of free will, hope, and love. Hell burns the mind like flames. It feels like your mind is on fire when you are in hell. I don't think of hell as a real place. It is ultimately illusory. But the experience of hell is very real in the minds of the damned.
Conditional Immortality view is the most scripturally based. Universalism is based on philosophy that then uses Scripture to prove it. The atonement study in "Lamb of the Free" speaks about our participation in His death and resurrection. How is this participation one-sided with God doing all the work? The blood of the lamb is applied to the doorpost, but the participant still has to eat the lamb. Universalism says differently.
I think my theological journey on this topic is quite similar!
You should do a video on hopeful universalism based on exegesis
That's a great idea. Thanks!
@@JoelWentz I have frustrations with people who say that they are hopeful universalist but don’t really flush out what that would actually look like as a doctrine except from a philosophical standpoint
@@claytonhomewood3994is your frustration caused by their lack of commitment to universalism no holds barred? Or by their commitment to any sort of eschatology that looks forward to the redepmtion of all things?
I don't think NT Wright is an annihilationist. His understanding is cast through an image bearing (human) as you say and a resurrection perspective. i.e. There will be a (general) resurrection of the just and the unjust (Acts 24.15), though believers will be raised by the Spirit, bearing the image of the second Adam.
Wright’s views are very strange on this subject. If I read him correctly, he essentially believes that those who are outside the kingdom of God will become progressively less and less human. I don’t know what he considers the end result to be, for this phenomenon. Even though I have great respect for him, I honestly believe that his view has the least support for it in scripture.
Take it for what it's worth but I think the only thing that can 'force' God (as you put it) is His very essence. In other words, God must be God according to His nature.
The second resurrection makes absolutely no sense from an annihilationist perspective. God resurrects the dead in order to annihilate them?
Why doesn't that make sense? I don't think Annihilationism is talking about a quick and painless erasure from reality for the annihilated. People would probably still be punished. "Some receive few blows, some receive many" and all that.
I'm with DBH, and see some truth in his jibe that hopeful universalists are really hoping that God is at least as compassionate as they are. And at the end with your "Let God be God" idea you skirt too close to the "Good is what(ever) God wills". My background started as a JW, so very prejudiced against hell, but then after conversion I became Calvinist in my thinking, and I think that growing up with what I still consider to be a correct view of freedom makes it natural for me to dismiss the idea of Universal Salvation as God somehow forcing himself upon people. DBH handles this well, as do you in your exposition. Obviously a lot of emotive arguments against hell as ECT are removed by annihilationism, as also the quite widespread view promoted by CSLewis in The Great Divorce and the standard view of non Universalist Orthodox namely that we all go to the same place but for some it is bliss but for others misery, usually coupled with the insistence that the Damned do not wish to cease to exist.
For all that, it still ends with Adam's sin having much wider reach than Christ's sacrifice, and most non-Universalist positions do end up with the rather bizarre notion that many, and quite possibly the majority of those in Bliss are infants dying or being aborted. To counter the normal Calvinist view that very few are brought to saving faith most (even in Evo circles) lower the bar to salvation so much as to play so fast and loose with the Scripture that they may as well go the whole hog and become universalists.
I think what holds most people back is that there has not been a convincing worked out view of exactly how it all works. I am evaluating two from consistent biblical conservatives, but they are not obvious. They work on the idea that The Redeemed Church are those who rule as Priests and Kings with Christ in the restored earth in which all are raised and over time are led to belief.
However, at the end, who knows? Maybe God intends us to find truth through emotion more than intellect, and once you have grasped the vision that none of God's creation is created for nought, much less for torment, you can't go back.
25:32 IMO there is one aspect of ECT that is overlooked. That is how God would 'feel' about people who continue for all eternity suffering for their sin, possibly even sinning for all eternity as well. God responds to peoples sin with wrath and grief. Wrath because He is holy and just, grief because He loves sinners. Given God's wrath and grief over sinners, it is not only the people punished for there sins who endure conscious torment. It is a condition that God would bind Himself to for all eternity. He would eternally experience wrath and grief if he doesn't resolve the problem. This is a bit like an eternal prison. I suspect no being in existence has more at stake than God Himself if he does not do away with sin and death, the suffering of His creatures altogether.
This is so important! We become so self-absorbed with our own experience that we would neglect God’s experience if it gets in the way of resolving our own dilemma.
John tells unequivocally that God is Love (not love but....). Paul clearly defines Love for us and ends with Love never fails. God's desire is that all should saved (Peter & Paul clearly state this). Jesus said 'if I be lifted up I will draw all Mankind to myself'. The Baptist proclaimed 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the Sin of the World' and the Angel announced 'I bring you glad tidings of great joy that shall be for all people'.
At the cross the wrath of God (which is a manifestation of his Love) was demonstrated with regard to Sin and Death and his Mercy shown when Jesus prayed 'Father forgive them they know not what they do'.
Universal Reconciliation is writ large through the Bible and that's why the Gospel really is Good News. Colossians1v15-20, Romans 11v32-36. Grace and Peace.
I've had similar thoughts about fear not being an effective motivation. Scripture itself tells us fear is not a good motivator. At some point I fell hard for the language in Jeremiah 31:3, "The Lord has appeared of old to me, saying: "Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore with Lovingkindness I have drawn you." ..... It is not fear of hell that effectively draws us to the Lord, but rather His lovingkindness.
I’m not as concerned with heaven being a selfish motivation. Because I think what is most glorious about heaven is the presence of God. And since He created us for Himself, this isn’t selfish as much as it’s by design.
I’m not sure if you meant to suggest that philosophical reflection is equal to scripture. That’s dangerous - God tells us His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways. Isaiah 55:8-9. I carefully consider both paths here … A) God is knowable. We cannot throw knowledge to the wayside if God is knowable…. But on the other hand B) that knowledge has to submit to scripture ultimately if Isaiah 55 is true. Eve made the mistake of prioritizing her philosophy of knowing good vs evil…. And it was perhaps the worst choice within all of humanity.
I love what you offer at the end, regarding standards outside of God to which God must adhere. I agree wholeheartedly. But I would challenge, isn’t that what you do when you say God must be recognizably good? *to mankind* ? What if God in His goodness thought it was good to justify all opposition to his goodness, without any offering of redemption? Because it is justice in response to opposition to Him - the source of all goodness - would this not be good? What if God in His goodness desires to reveal His nature to His creation -- His mercy, His justice, His goodness in all of His attributes? What if God decides that mercy is good, but it can only be known or revealed against a backdrop of justice, which is also good?
It is scripture where God has *revealed* himself - His love, His holiness, His justice, His power, His faithfulness. When we get caught up in our imaginings of great-making properties, we risk not prioritizing what God says is great about Himself. What God says is good about Himself.
Does universalism not minimize the cross? If the cross is minimized, if the cross could have been avoidable, unnecessary…. If any amount of temporary torment could have accomplished what Jesus could … It seems to be a different gospel. Jesus says His blood seals the covenant between God and His people, Matt 26:28… Any added salvation in the afterlife would be outside of this covenant and extra-biblical. Universalism just isn’t the expression of God most consistent with what is revealed.
I can’t see how God is subject to anything morally outside of himself. Is this not impossible. If God is not his own moral frame of reverence- divine command theory, then is he even Divine?Is there an ought from the is? Isn’t it now the supernatural fallacy? Sure, we better do as God wishes, but he can, if it’s in his nature, send us to hell if he sees fit. It becomes a might makes right argument. It’s no longer right makes might argument.
@@chriswest8389 in my estimation, it is only a might makes right argument if the might of God is more powerful than the just-ness of His righteousness.
All of humanity craves justice. It’s a craving that has established and overturned governments throughout time. People are willing to give their lives for it, deeming it so right and good. We crave it… until we are its subject, and then we pit it against all else we can imagine is good.
Responding to "Does universalism not minimize the cross? If the cross is minimized, if the cross could have been avoidable, unnecessary…. If any amount of temporary torment could have accomplished what Jesus could … It seems to be a different gospel." Purgatorial universalism does not view the temporary torment as accomplishing anything in terms of the ultimate fate of people. That is, it is not about paying for sins. It is a matter of purification. Even in this earthly life sanctification is a process. It does not happen at once.
@@warrenroby6907
hebrews 9:14 says "How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God."...
So you are comparing purgatorial universalism to that which the cross of Christ does. The cross of Christ doesn't just pay for our sins, it purifies our sins, it does all the things that make us justified, clothed in the righteousness of Jesus.
(sanctification is a different thing, it is not the essential of what makes us worthy for heaven.)
So thus, a secondary option that would accomplish the purpose of the cross & render it unnecessary.
@@Shark_fishing I agree that justification and sanctification are separate things. The Hebrews verse you cite talks about purifying the "conscience" not sins. And the point is to stop "dead works." One of the things which attracted me to universalism (or the term I much prefer, ultimate reconciliation) is that it accords with all the strong exhortations to good works (seen especially in Paul). It makes sense of "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." We do good works out of gratitude and because we are enabled by the Holy Spirit. There are many places, in the OT and NT, where it is said that we will be judged for our works. We will be saved by Christ's great work, but what we do in this life still counts.