Introduction:

The most dangerous act the mind of man can do is put his reasoning and logic over that of God’s. This is the action performed by Quaker minister Philip Gulley and Quaker theologian James Mulholland in their work If Grace is True. Rather than acknowledge the truth of the Gospels, Gulley and Mulholland used dubious arguments, subjective interpretation, and Scripture taken out of context to frame their controversial belief that all are saved regardless of religious conviction. At the beginning of every chapter the mantra is repeated: “I believe God will save every person.” Often entitled Universalism, Gulley and Mulholland have written this book mostly as a way to challenge the perceptions gathered about their beliefs. I shall look at the fundamentals of their reasoning and evidence thereof.

I. Subjectivism

It is very hard to make a concrete argument of any kind when dealing with religious belief. Religious convictions tend to be based on unobservable supernatural phenomena that extend beyond empirical experimentation. This does not make tenets of faith any less in value than theories of science, but it does make it hard to make a firm resolution on a debate as it fast becomes a matter of who gathers more emotion (and converts) than the other side. Be that as it may, it is not impossible to make falsifiable arguments and theses in religious theology. A benefit of Christianity is that we do have means to properly debate theology. We have the Scriptures, the Church councils, writings from Church fathers, and so forth.

Despite the array of testable pieces that Gulley and Mulholland could theoretically use for their book, they instead resort to subjective opinion. Throughout the book Gulley and Mulholland use personal anecdotes to draw in an emotional plea for Universalism. In many chapters of their work the authors make admonition that the primary basis for their theology is mere feelings:

“I based my convictions on my experiences with God.”¹

“You may think me foolish to trust my experiences and to question beliefs held for thousands of years by millions of sincere people.”²

“It has taken powerful experiences to soften my heart and mind so I could be molded in new ways.”³

Experience is crucial to understanding God, but it is not supposed to be by itself. Indeed when left alone as the sole evidence experience is subjective, opinionated, and baseless. If evidence cannot follow experience then it is no different than any other baseless opinion a person has. It was once pointed out to me that one should think about those who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior at revivals. They have obviously experienced God, but then what? Are they building upon this experience? If they are not, then entropy eventually appears and in the end it was all for naught as the sinners return to their sinful lifestyle.

Gulley and Mulholland need to have more than personal experience, they need a foundation and beliefs that in turn are built on that foundation. Otherwise their beliefs have no grounding and like all human thought are products of vanity and subject to faulty conjecture. If they cannot provide adequate basis for their reasoning then their declarations of Universalism are comparable at best to the claims of some that they have been abducted by aliens. So much of the book is based ONLY on personal experience and therefore ONLY on their man-made subjective reasoning, which eventually collapses upon scrutiny.

The opening is one example. Gulley and Mulholland use the life and death of a woman named Sally to open their plea to those who dare to believe that some of the race of men shall not be saved from the Kingdom of Satan. Sally had a hard life, dealing with painful situations domestic and otherwise, wrestling to survive as drugs, alcohol, and abusive relationships prevailed. Sally eventually started to turn her life around, moving away from these things and building a stable life. After all that, a month before her sudden death she had told her son “I think I’m going to look for a church.” According to the authors, Sally died searching.

And that is where the misconceptions begin. The authors described what reasoning THEY believed came from mainstream Christianity: “To many Christians, Sally’s destiny was an easy judgment. Having never accepted Christ, Christ wouldn’t accept her. She was doomed to hell.”⁵ Maybe a fringe group, but “many” is a bit much. The authors made their first mistake in analyzing damnation-believing Christians; it’s already known that it’s not about being a member of the church. Theologically conservative groups like Family Radio, for example, not only believe one is saved without joining a church, they actually profess that the church at large is not to be trusted with salvation.⁶ Fewer extremes prevail throughout Christianity, showing that the authors’ assessment of what is perceived as a state of grace is faulty.

Problem number two with the example is that technically none of us know whether or not she surrendered herself to God. Searching for a church does not mean one is not already a believer; it just means that one is searching for a church. Many people describe themselves as seekers: they do not have a denominational affiliation but they do believe in Jesus Christ. For the authors to make the assumption about her one sentence statement to her son as being proof of infidelity is dubious. Then again, there might be more. After all, none of the readers of this book know if ANYTHING ELSE was spoken by the son about his mother Sally. It may have been the case that he had specified that she had accepted Christ and wanted to grow in faith, which was why she had mentioned that she was finding a church. Since neither Gulley nor Mulholland have a fear of hell, a fear of misquoting is unlikely to be present. And as we shall later see, this is more than conjecture on my part.

Yet even if their framing of Sally’s story is true, there is more to note. Why do Gulley and Mulholland feel that it would be wrong for Sally to not enter Heaven because of not accepting Jesus Christ as her Savior? The reason judging by context would be the belief the authors hold that she did too much and worked too hard to not enter Heaven. As Gulley and Mulholland stated in their opening lamentation:

“I’d once thought hell a fitting end to her life. But when I learned more about her, that judgment troubled me. Sally had spent her life climbing out of hell. How could I wish for her return?”⁷

That’s right; the authors believed that Sally couldn’t have gone to hell because of her good works. This means that from the very start they created a false perception on how salvation operates. The interesting thing is they actually denounce this view later on: “Many, like me, have experienced God’s love but have misunderstood salvation. We’ve thought it a trophy rather than a gift, a personal achievement rather than a work of God.”⁸ Yet by believing that salvation should be granted just because someone did good things is exactly the reasoning put forth by them earlier. In other words, in trying to refute the notion of damnation the authors have made a contradiction in logic, feeling that good works should have gotten Sally to heaven yet also denouncing the views of others that salvation is earned.

A similar double-minded nature follows just about every extensive emotional anecdote, which by the way comprises nearly ALL the evidence they gathered for their theological worldview. Gulley and Mulholland pretty much use this flimsy logic for the first 199 pages of their 224-page book. The only other type of evidence given is the occasional biblical passage, but they are few in number and are going to be covered later. The bigger point is this: personal experience is good but without additional intellectual structure its really just one pathos-laden grain of salt. This is something that does not seem to be appreciated by the authors.

Gulley and Mulholland’s analysis of their theological opposition is a good example:

“Leaving old beliefs behind is always painful.”⁹

“One of the signs of maturity is when we stop believing everything we’ve been told. When I was in second grade, I stopped believing in Santa Clause. When I was in sixth grade, I stopped believing the opposite sex had cooties. When I was in high school, I stopped believing my parents knew everything.”¹⁰

“Many decide to escape the pain of growth by uncritically adopting the beliefs they were taught.”¹¹

This is remarkably similar to what Steve Hagen said in his work Buddhism Plain and Simple about those he felt were not knowledgeable of the true reality:

“As little children, we readily accept the first story we’re given at home, or school, or church. We’re told stories of nationalism, religion, racism, politics, and family. All too often we accept them before we learn to weight them against other views.”¹²

What is it with people and upbringing anyway? Do Hagen, Gulley, and Mulholland really believe that we should just reject most everything we learn from an early age? Since we first learn the alphabet in school and loving of our neighbors at church I wonder if we should reject those stories while we’re at it. Keeping in tune with Hagen and their own words, Gulley and Mulholland identify the behavior of their ideological opposition as being puerile:

“Though the defenders of Biblical inerrancy are adamant that God has spoken, they grow nervous when its suggested God continues to speak. They become frightened when someone implies God might say something different from their closely guarded interpretations of Scripture.”¹³

Yet the problem persists that Gulley and Mulholland are not using any Divine or Objective authority for this basis, much less and most notably for their Universalism theology. The authors claim their opposition has no basis for their reasoning and are subsequently acting childish; but if they are equally lacking then they are no better than the archetype they have created for their theological foes. And for the record, many of the prominent members of the Biblical Inerrancy camp such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson came to such conclusions during or after college years. So whatever Hagen, Gulley, and Mulholland may tell a person, they are not opposed by people fixated on their childhood memories but rather a large group of mature adults.

II. Misquoting the Bible.

Now let us turn back to Steve Hagen, who has a Dharma Transmission (endorsement by a Zen master to teach Buddhism). When making his case for Buddhist philosophy, he did his best to lash out against moralistic philosophy, namely Biblical moralistic philosophy. Speaking of the dangers of moral absolutes, he made a case argument: you’re living in 1940s Germany and hiding a Jewish family in your attic. One day you get a visit from the Gestapo, who ask you if you are hiding Jews in your house. The question Hagen asks is this: “If we say, ‘Thou shalt not lie,’ applying it as a rule, what are we to do when the Gestapo pounds at our door and we’re harboring a family of innocent fugitives in the attic?”¹⁴

An interesting argument, but Hagen misses out on one point: that is not what the Commandment says. The literal reading is “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” There is no ban on all lying, least of all lying that would help one’s neighbor. Using the same degree of mistaken context and quotation, Gulley and Mulholland compiled a list of scriptural quotations to support Universalism. Yet each and every time there is an ignorance of context on the part of the authors. For the record, the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible shall be used, as it is used by Gulley and Mulholland. The appendix showcasing verses used sporadically in the book goes from page 199-210. I won’t go through all the examples, because honestly after awhile you get the idea:

“All peoples on earth will be blessed by you.” (Genesis 12:3)

This one is actually inaccurately cited, as the full verse reads:

“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

It is very interesting that the authors decided to not include that first part, which obviously speaks of people being cursed. Furthermore, the term “all peoples” is more along the lines of all races, as in from each race shall come God’s elect.

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Exodus 33:19)

There is no indication that this means all human beings who have ever lived. Indeed, when God speaks these words they are to Moses, to be relayed to the People Israel. An elect group is being told these things, in other words.

“Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths [sheol], you are there.” (Psalm 139:7-8)

Once again there is no indication that this means all human beings are saved. This really talks about where God is present, which can mean present to enact justice and judgment. Further to note is that in Psalm 139 comes the declaration on the part of the Psalmist “If only you would slay the wicked, O God!” (Psalm 139:19)

“Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For I am coming, and I will live among you. Many nations will be joined with the Lord in that day and will become my people.” (Zechariah 2:10-11)

What I find particularly amusing about the authors deciding to use this verse is that it doesn’t say ‘All nations will be joined with the Lord’, yet somehow it’s still a vindication of Universalism.

“Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:50)

But does it say that ‘whoever does not do the will of my Father in heaven’? No it doesn’t. This means that Jesus Himself declares that there are those, who by not doing His Father’s will, are not his brothers, sisters, or mothers.

“Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?” (Luke 15:4)

This goes into the fundamental problem with Gulley and Mulholland’s work. God is amazing, He seeks the lost. But that doesn’t mean all shall be saved. The authors and Universalism at large are like an archer who overshoots his mark; they take redemption and they throw it out of context completely. Just because God offers salvation does not mean mankind will accept it. Just because God wants us to be saved doesn’t mean we want to be saved. As that very parable by Jesus concludes, “I will tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.” (Luke 15:7). In other words, Jesus Himself states that there are people who NEED TO REPENT IN ORDER TO ENTER HEAVEN.

“When I am lifted up, I will draw all men to myself.” (John 12:32)

This one sounds especially tantalizing to the Universalist thinker, but once again it is taken out of context. The verse before it declares “Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.” (John 12:31) This drawing can be for judgment as well.

“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” (1st Corinthians 15:22)

Yet again, another verse out of context. For the verses before speak of death entering the world through Adam and eternal life entering the world through Christ. This does not mean that all are saved, but that salvation has been introduced to the world. Furthermore, to better frame what I explained, the chapter continues on and speaks of God putting his enemies under his feet (v.26) and flesh not inheriting the Kingdom of God (v.50). Do Gulley and Mulholland realize that the Bible in fact condemns their worldview rather than support it?

The answer is yes: “There are too many verses about judgment, hell, and the eternal punishment of the wicked to make such optimism reasonable.”¹⁵ Indeed all the figures of Scripture they claim as being sympathetic actually all denounce the notion of Universalism. Peter (who is used in the book as an example of accepting everyone in the Kingdom of Heaven because he accepted Gentiles in the book of Acts) addresses believers as “God’s elect”.¹⁶ Paul, whose Epistles comprised much of the Christian Scripture section of the 1st appendix of Gulley and Mulholland’s work, wrote not only of the beauty of salvation but noted that those who lived in sin would not “inherit the Kingdom of God.”¹⁷ Let’s not forget the parables and teaching of Jesus speaking of those who shall not enter Heaven.¹⁸

So why even bother quoting a source that actually denies their theology? Gulley and Mulholland would claim that it was interesting that these supposed Universalism-supporting verses got in there in the first place. But the fact remains that they are trying to have it both ways: saying that we cannot trust the Bible on everything it says but then also saying that we should trust the Bible here and there whenever a verse or two seems to vindicate their worldview. This is the same logic used by antebellum slave-owners who cited verses in the Bible out of context to justify human bondage. By using verses out of context instead of comparing Scripture with Scripture, Gulley and Mulholland have set a dangerous precedent for Biblical interpretation that is actually dangerous to our well-being.

III. Dubious Philosophy

Social psychologists refer to it as the bell-shaped curve. We’ve all seen one before; its that line which starts at a very low point and then progressively rises, hitting peak before making a descent similar to its previous rising. Looking like an upside-down smile, it is commonly used in public opinion and test results. For example, consistent with the bell-shaped curve, the vast majority of human beings fall within the normal range of intelligence (IQ 100-110), which would make them part of that large bulge in the middle of the line’s progression. People who have above average intelligence are found on one end where the line is lower, indicating their rarity and the other end another rarity, those with below average intelligence.

Gulley and Mulholland do not take into consideration the bell-shaped curve when dealing with salvation. The essence of their Universalism theology is that after death people who did not accept Christ in life will eventually accept Him after death. This is how they see every person eventually entering heaven even as Scripture and the bell-shaped curve say otherwise. This section showcases how the latter of the two denounces Universalism.

Let’s say there was a chance that those who have died in sin have a chance after death to come to Heaven. Well, using the confirmed model of the bell-shaped curve there’s a chance that most of those damned to Hell if given an opportunity after death would indeed accept it. Some on the one end would probably even be genuine in their repentance rather than just wanting to avoid eternal punishment. But remember the other wing of extremes: those who don’t want to be saved. Given the uniqueness of the mind of man, there will always be a core group of people committed to rejecting God. Consider in this life the Church of Satan, a group that not only doesn’t acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Savior but also longs to serve the other side. Do they want to spend an eternity with the God they hate?

Ironically this is best spelled out by Gulley and Mulholland themselves, who offer a glimpse into the work of Clive Staples Lewis. In CS Lewis’ classic The Great Divorce, there is a portion devoted to how those damned to hell are offered a bus ride to heaven and given the chance to stay there, but each time they come they refuse and so board the bus and go back to hell. The authors were actually trying to make a different point with the reference, but instead they merely vindicated the point that not every person shall be saved. For there will always be those who refuse to enter Heaven. After all, what makes Heaven heaven anyway? It’s the presence of God. What makes Hell hell? It’s the absence of God. If people do not want God to be in their life or afterlife, then why would they want to go to Heaven?

Gulley and Mulholland can talk about how God will break even the hardest heart, and I agree that He can. But it takes a willingness on the part of the person to want to be saved from his sins. If they never get this willingness, if they never want to be saved, then Heaven would become a hell for them. As CS Lewis once put it, “God can’t give us happiness and peace apart from Himself because there is no such thing.” By deviating from the God of the Bible, Who sits in judgment and pardons those who call upon Him, the authors have turned God into a supernatural rapist, who forces himself upon those who love him not, making them love him and keeping them in an eternity that they suffer through.

Conclusion:

Many may wonder why it would be so bad to have everyone go to heaven and my answer to that is to counter with another question: what would make it so wrong for all of us to go to hell when we die? As sinners, it would be more than fitting and once again we would all be going to the same place, meaning that we would run into family and friends guaranteed. But there would be no justice, as everyone good and bad, repentant and unrepentant, would end up with the same reward. As sinners, we all deserve to go to hell not heaven. That is the chief purpose of God sending Jesus Christ to earth, to seek and to save what was lost. The gift offered is a beautiful one and involves amazing forgiveness of transgressions. But it is also a Divine gift that not everyone is going to accept; this is something Gulley and Mulholland do not seem to appreciate, as they used dubious arguments, misquoted Scripture, endless pathos-laden example to try to prove their theologically faulty thesis.

Sources:

1. Philip Gulley and James Mulholland, If Grace is True (HarperSanFrancisco, 2003) p.49.

2. Gulley and Mulholland, p.21.

3. Gulley and Mulholland, p.30.

4. Quote found in Gulley and Mulholland, p.4.

5. Gulley and Mulholland, p.4.

6. A good example is Harold Camping, The End of the Church Age…And After, Oakland, CA: Family Stations, Inc., 2002.

7. Gulley and Mulholland, p.5.

8. Gulley and Mulholland, p.8.

9. Gulley and Mulholland, p.27.

10. Gulley and Mulholland, p.29.

11. Gulley and Mulholland, p.35.

12. Hagen, Steve, Buddhism Plain and Simple (New York: Broadway Books, 1997) p.81.

13. Gulley and Mulholland, p.37.

14. Hagen, p.78.

15. Gulley and Mulholland, p.49.

16. 1st Peter 1:1.

17. 1st Corinthians 6:9.

18. Matthew 13:24-29, Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50, Luke 17:28-32.