A Considered Response
Introduction
This essay is written in response to an article by Matt Slick, President and Founder of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM).
Mr. Slick and I met briefly many years ago at a conference near Dallas. At that time, I appreciated the work he was doing and benefited from the resources he made available. Through his website, I was introduced to structured Bible study, theological vocabulary, and apologetic reasoning. Those early influences were meaningful in my growth.
Mr. Slick is a passionate and committed teacher. He writes extensively, supports other Christian writers, and seeks to defend what he understands to be sound doctrine. I am persuaded that his desire, like mine, is to honor God.
It is with that respect that I offer these reflections.
A Shared Foundation
Mr. Slick defines a Christian as one who trusts in the atoning work of Christ, believes in Him as God in the flesh, and follows Him.
By that definition, I am a Christian.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
I believe He died for the sin of the world.
I believe He rose again and reigns at the right hand of the Father.
Where I differ is not in Christ, but in the scope of His work.
I hold to what I have come to call impartial grace—the conviction that God, through Christ, will reconcile all to Himself.
A Personal Turning
There was a time when I held firmly to the doctrine of limited atonement. I taught it, defended it, and believed it to be essential to understanding God’s grace.
Over time, through study and reflection, that conviction changed.
This was not a rejection of Christ or of Scripture, but a reconsideration of what Scripture declares about the reach of His work. In particular, I was drawn to passages that speak of the fullness of God’s purpose—of reconciliation, restoration, and completion.
This shift did not lessen my faith. It deepened it.
Clarifying Terms
It is important to distinguish between universalism and universal reconciliation.
Universalism, in its broadest sense, may suggest that all religious paths lead equally to God.
What I am describing is different.
I believe salvation is found in Christ alone.
I believe Jesus Christ is Lord.
I believe all are reconciled through Him—not apart from Him.
For this reason, the term universal reconciliation more accurately reflects what I believe, though I recognize it is often grouped under the broader label of universalism.
The Question of Scope
Mr. Slick affirms that it is possible for a person to hold to universalism and still be a Christian, particularly if they also affirm what he considers the essential doctrines of the faith.
On this point, we are closer than it might first appear.
The question, then, is not whether such a person can be Christian—but whether their understanding of Christ’s work is complete or incomplete.
From my perspective, the question becomes:
If Christ died for the world,
and if His authority extends over all,
what is the final reach of His saving work?
A Consideration of Grace
There are moments in Mr. Slick’s writing where he acknowledges that God does not condemn a person for what they do not know.
This is a meaningful point.
If ignorance is met with mercy, then we are invited to consider how far that mercy extends.
There are many in the world who have not heard the Gospel clearly, or at all. Others have heard it through the lens of hardship, culture, or misunderstanding.
Are these beyond the reach of grace?
Or does grace reach further than our understanding of it?
A Broader Reflection
Consider a child born into circumstances where survival is the daily concern—where faith is not taught, and understanding is limited.
How does God regard such a life?
Scripture consistently reveals a God who is just, but also merciful—who sees, who knows, and who acts with purpose.
It is difficult for me to conclude that His grace would fall short in such cases.
Instead, I am drawn to believe that His grace is not only sufficient, but complete.
On Essential Doctrine
Mr. Slick outlines essential doctrines of the Christian faith—belief in Christ’s deity, salvation by grace, His resurrection, the Gospel, and monotheism.
On these, we largely agree.
I affirm:
- that Jesus is God in the flesh
- that salvation is by grace
- that He rose from the dead
- that His Gospel is true
Where we differ is not in these essentials, but in how we understand their outcome.
Unity and Difference
It is possible to share the same foundation and still differ in understanding.
Mr. Slick suggests that those who hold to universal reconciliation may be mistaken or confused, yet still within the faith.
I would respond differently.
I would say that those who hold to different views are often seeking to be faithful to Scripture as they understand it.
We are not adversaries, but fellow seekers.
A Hope Rooted in Christ
I believe that Christ’s work is not partial.
I believe that what He began, He will bring to completion.
I believe that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord—not in compulsion alone, but in truth.
This is not a denial of judgment.
It is a confidence in redemption.
A Closing Word
The question, “Can a Christian be a universalist?” may be answered simply:
Yes.
But perhaps a better question is this:
What does Scripture reveal about the fullness of Christ’s work?
If we begin with Christ, remain in Christ, and trust Him fully, we may find that His purposes are greater than we first understood.
My hope is not to win an argument, but to encourage reflection.
If I am mistaken, may I be corrected gently.
If I have seen something true, may it be received with the same grace.
In all things, may Christ be honored.
Impartial Grace 