In my previous post I attempted to look at the teaching of universal salvation from the perspective of a universalist. My hope in doing so was to correct some of the misconceptions and false charges laid against those who hold to the belief that one day every single person will be saved and to create a space for healthier dialogue on the topic. My personal studies have brought me a better respect and appreciation for those who have embraced it. UR seems to correct some of the areas where the teachings of eternal conscious torment fall short. It offers us an explanation for an eschatology where God will one day be all in all, where God can once again look on the whole of the cosmos and every creature in heaven and earth and say as He did in the beginning, indeed it is very good! Universalism also offers a picture of God that will likely create less atheists than the traditional view of hell does (not that our feelings should be a measuring stock for truth but still…). Paul mentioned in his letter to the Romans that it not the terror of God, but rather the goodness of God that leads people to repentance (1). While many people say if universalism is true, then there is no need to evangelize the world, I would suggest that an invitation to follow Jesus grounded in love rather than fear is not necessarily a bad thing. The inclusivist message is one where mercy triumphs over judgement (2), justice meets mercy and punishment has a purposeful intent behind it. But universalism is not without its theological problems and there are several of them that one needs get over before one could embrace it confidently. What follows are four legitimate areas of concern one might have against universalism. Then in my third and final post I will reveal four more reasons why I myself personally am not convinced that UR is the right interpretation to hold to.
Revisiting those scriptures
The vast majority of the verses that we looked at in the previous post which seemingly support universalism were noted for using words like ‘all men’ (Romans 5:18), ‘all the nations’ (Jeremiah 3:17) or ‘all the world’ (John 3:17), but we need to also consider that there are scriptures that also say things like, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven…” (Matthew 7:2) and “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them” (John 3:36). So it is likely that the people who penned these words had in mind the Gentile nations rather than every single person who ever lived when they referred to all men, all nations, all flesh and all the world. Romans 11:32 for example says the following:
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Romans 11:32 is clearly in the context of Israel’s rejection of Christ to the benefit of the Gentiles (verse 11-12) who were been grafted into Gods fold and is the obvious interpretation for the word 'all' in its context. A great deal of the universalist proof texts can be clarified by reading them with this radical idea of the grafting in of all peoples (not just Jews) in mind. So when Paul says things like “Christ is the savior of all men, especially those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:10). It means exactly what it says. Christ does not favor Americans over Africans or Jews over Palestinians. He is the one that all men must look to for deliverance. But more so than that, in particular it is those who believe who are the benefactors of His salvation because they are the ones who will receive eternal life. Indeed just 6 verses later Paul tells Timothy that if he heeds his words he will save both himself and his hearers, something that seems unnecessary if verse 10 means that eternal life is universally granted to all. This is probably the most important point that I am going to make because it wipes out the majority of the verses that universalism rests on and so I encourage you to revisit all of the supporting texts cited in my previous post and to systematically read through them one by one with the idea in mind that when the authors spoke of all flesh they were speaking about the inclusion of the Gentiles into the family of God. Look at the context of those verses and the overall themes of the books and you will likely begin to connect the dots that the ‘all’ in those verses is related to the ‘mystery’ that Paul oftentimes spoke of; the mystery referring to Israel becoming a blessing to all nations through the birth of Christ and how their rejection of Him was beneficial to the Gentiles when he and his coworkers began sharing the gospel with them.
Some of the scriptures, like the ones in 1 Corinthians 15, also contain the words ‘in Christ’ which should be noted as the determining or qualifying factor in the statements. So while in Adam all die, in Christ all will be made alive (verse 22) does not mean that all peoples are numbered in among both groups. Paul affirms this by the words that immediately follow the statement, “But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming” (verse 23).
The second largest portion of UR scriptures deal with the restoration of all things. I find overwhelming support in universalisms assertion that creation will one day be 100% in harmony with Christ. Evil will not simply be contained or confined to the shadows of society but be eradicated entirely. This however does not mean that every person need be redeemed, it only requires that the redeemed inherit eternal life while those who are outside of Christ perish. This concept however is not limited to the teachings of universalism only and also fits well within the view known as conditional immortality. So the biblical hope in the restoration of all things is compatible with both views, it does however deliver a serious blow to the traditional view of hell, but it does not by itself prove the universalist model to be true or false in and of itself.
Apart then from two scriptures that deal with the possibility of post mortem repentance which we will deal with separately, the last remaining supportive texts for universalism come from Revelation 21. I do believe that Revelation 21:23-26 gives the strongest argument for universalism; the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into the new Jerusalem and the gates of the city are never shut. I do think however that we should contextualize Johns revelation by what precedes it, notably that the ‘former things have passed away’ (Revelation 21:7). So it is possible that the kings of the earth are not the same as those mentioned elsewhere in the book. Also, the gates of the city perpetually remaining open is just as likely symbolic of an age of peace as it is an ongoing invitation for the unrepentant to come inside. So the scriptural support for universalism is perhaps not as strong as it seemed at first glance but is difficult to dismiss entirely which is perhaps why so many people have labelled themselves as hopeful universalists. Been non-dogmatic on the fate of the wicked but hopeful that the lost will eventually be saved.
A common false assumption
It is sometimes assumed that verses like 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 which points out that Christ died not only for our sins but also for the sins of the whole world and is no longer counting anyone’s sins against them equates to universal salvation. I would submit that it is a false assumption to make that the forgiveness of sins equates to eternal life. Certainly, forgiveness is an essential step in restoring a right relationship with God but let me illustrate my concern with this reasoning by using a practical example. Let’s say that someone has wronged me by stealing my possessions for drug money but I have dealt with the offense and forgiven the person entirely, I carry no animosity toward them at all and wish them well. This person now has grounds to work on in reconciling with me now but they are in no way exempt from the consequences of their actions. They may still end up in prison if they are caught with stolen property, they may even end up having a drug overdose or catch a deadly disease from using dirty needles. There is simply no guarantee that my forgiving them will have any positive effect on their destructive lifestyle choices.
Forgiveness is the first step toward reconciliation but it remains of no value to the offender if they do not receive it and repent. Consider the men who crucified Jesus, His words to them were, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (3). Does this mean that His executioners were saved because they had been forgiven? What fruits were the evidence of their salvation? All we can conclude from this story is that Jesus was not holding this grave injustice against them. God is not a hypocrite who expects us not to harbor unforgiveness in our hearts toward others but then goes and does so Himself. 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 says that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself but Paul’s words do not stop there, he continues in verse 20 by imploring us to likewise “be reconciled to God”. In other words, forgiveness only requires that one person comes to the table but full reconciliation and authentic relationships require that both parties come together and make peace.
Counter scriptures
The strongest among you will disappear like straw; their evil deeds will be the spark that sets it on fire. They and their evil works will burn up together, and no one will be able to put out the fire. – Isaiah 1:31
When the storm has swept by, the wicked are gone, but the righteous stand firm forever. – Proverbs 10:25
Let your fire consume your enemies. But those who die in the Lord will live; their bodies will rise again! Those who sleep in the earth will rise up and sing for joy! – Isaiah 26:11
Isaiah 26:11 not only tell us that Gods enemies will be consumed but also contrasts it with those whose bodies will be resurrected in Christ and live. Obadiah 16 elaborates and tells us that they will ‘be as though they had never been’. Malachi 4:1-3 says that they, not just their works, will be ‘chaff’ and reduced to ‘ash’, Isaiah 66:24 refers to them as ‘corpses’ reduced to ‘worm food’. Peter mentions that they will ‘utterly perish in their own corruption (4)’. These are difficult scriptures to interpret within the universalist framework; but there is more to it than having to account for the nature of the Lake of Fire (does the fire torment, consume or refine?) that one must account for. Beyond explaining Gods judgement as a ‘refining fire’, universalists also need to clarify why scripture oftentimes specifically uses language contrary to the idea of universalism. To give some examples, Isaiah 25:10 says that Jerusalem will be blessed but Moab will be crushed like straw and left to rot. Jesus said that narrow is the road that leads to life and there are few who find it (Matthew 7:13-14), in the same chapter He says that not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter into the kingdom of heaven. In Luke 20:34-36 He speaks of “those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead”. Romans 2:6-8 offers two endings to the reader, eternal life to those who in doing good seek for glory, honor and immortality and wrath and indignation for those who obey unrighteousness over truth.
Is it possible that eternal life will not be found by some who persistently are unwilling to go to Christ in order to have life (5)? As I have already pointed out the word ‘all’ when relating to salvation likely refers not to every person but rather the ‘whoever’ persons who qualify for eternal life from all nations (whether Jew or Gentile). Scripture contrasts 'whoever believes in Him' with 'whoever rejects Him' (John 3:36), it does not say all but whoever drinks the water (John 4:14), whoever hears His word and believes it (John 5:24), whoever eats the bread of life (John 6:51) and whoever sows to please the Spirit will reap eternal life (Galatians 6:8). ‘Whoever’ implies, even assumes, that not everyone will inherit eternal life and accept Gods offer in His Son.
Something to be admired about universalism is the focus on the person of Christ and the commitment to the belief that God is fully revealed to us in the Son and is good, merciful, gracious and loving toward all. Scripture tells us that God desires that none will perish but that all would come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). Jesus told us that if we had seen Him we had seen the Father, but His teachings through parables seem to reject the ideas of UR.
Many of the parables of Jesus provide us with insights into what the final state of the wicked will be and there is not really any indication (at least from Jesus) that there will be any second chances awaiting the lost in the afterlife. The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares in Matthew 13:24-43 for example says that the Tares will be ‘burned up’ while the wheat is gathered into the barn. Similarly, the Parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22 speaks of those who rejected the king’s invitation to the wedding feast, they are then destroyed while their cities are burned (verse 7). In the Parable of the Minas in Luke 19 the master’s enemies are slain before him (verse 27). Perhaps most applicable is the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins in Matthew 25 which goes even further in that the five virgins who were not ready when the Bridegroom arrived ask to be received but are still rejected.
Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us! But he answered and said, ‘Assuredly I say to you, I do not know you.’ – Matthew 25:11-12
Being late for the wedding feast and missing out on the marriage supper of the Lamb brings us to the next point that we need to address and the final one for this particular post.
Post Mortem Repentance
While not extremely popular, you will find people who hold to eternal conscious torment as well as conditional immortality who believe in the possibility of post mortem repentance. But in order for universalism to work, post mortem repentance is an absolute necessity. There are at least three verses that can be interpreted to include this as a possibility. Matthew 5:25-26 (no one gets out until their debt is paid), Philippians 2:9-11 (every knee will bow and tongue confess…) and then one other passage which we have not previously mentioned which is Isaiah 25:7-9.
And He will destroy on this mountain the surface of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces; the rebuke of His people He will take away from all the earth; for the Lord has spoken. And it will be said in that day: “Behold, this is our God; we have waited for Him, and He will save us. This is the Lord; we have waited for Him; we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation.”
Post mortem repentance is a nice thought, it certainly seems fair to those who grew up in non-Christian cultures and never heard the gospel in this life. One has to again ask themselves though if second, third or an infinite amount of chances are available to unbelievers not only after death but after the final judgement? And if so how do we reconcile these verses with others like Jesus’ parable about the ten virgins? One has to acknowledge that the general perception is that the warnings of destruction in the Bible are final, eternal and irrevocable (see Isaiah 47:14-15, 51:6-8, 65:11-15, 66:22-24, Jeremiah 4:4, Matthew 3:8-12, 5:29-30, 13:47-50, John 15:6, Hebrews 6:4-8, 2 Peter 3:3-7, Revelation 19:19-21, 20:7-10). Personally, I am not dogmatic on this point, I am doubtful as to the likelihood of second chances but hopeful that some, when they see God without the false images they once rejected which were all that they knew, will receive an opportunity to repent. But with so many scriptures that seem to point away from such an idea it would be foolish to bank on it. But even if post mortem repentance is indeed a thing, it is not enough in and of itself to guarantee universal salvation, it only creates the opportunity for such a possibility to exist.
i'll end off with one more thought, universalists will sometimes say that people reject God because they have not seen Him as He truly is, I have heard it said that people only reject a false image of God and that when we see Him in His glory all resistance will fall. My immediate thought to that is 'but what about Satan"? What about Adam and Eve? And what about all of those people who saw Jesus, God in the flesh, and then crucified Him? Satan rebelled against God and managed to convince unknown multitudes to do the same despite his privileged position because he took his eyes off of God and wanted glory for himself. Adam and Eve likewise wanted to be like God, they took their eyes off of God and were seduced by their own desires. Those who crucified Jesus did so because He was a threat to their privilege and power and NOT because He was a poor reflection of the Father. There are simply no guarantees that people will not gnash their teeth in defiance or have a change of heart when they stand face to face with God or that their fate will not already be sealed at that point.
In the next post I will conclude this little series by looking at four more points including the unforgivable sin and the Platonic concept of the immortal soul. Until then, as always, I appreciate and value your feedback and would love to know your thoughts in the comments section.
Blessings
Wesley
1 – Romans 2:4
2 – James 2:13
3 – Luke 23:34
4 – 2 Peter 2:12
5 – John 5:39-40
Great job with this Wesley, thanks!
ReplyDeleteThank you Peter, that means a lot coming from you.
DeleteThanks so much for the engagement, Wesley. I find your presentation of our view mostly fair, and in the few places where it may be less than completely fair, I feel sure that such “unfairness” is in no way deliberate.
ReplyDeleteI don’t intend to answer every claim in this article, but there are several claims that I think deserve special attention. What I’d like to do is list those claims here, then start a separate thread for each of them individually. To wit:
“1 Corinthians 15, also contain the words ‘in Christ’ which should be noted as the determining or qualifying factor in the statements.”
“[T]hat creation will one day be 100% in harmony with Christ [. . .] is not limited to the teachings of universalism only and also fits well within the view known as conditional immortality.”
“[I]t is possible that the kings of the earth are not the same as those mentioned elsewhere in the book.”
“2 Corinthians 5:18-19 says that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself but Paul’s words do not stop there, he continues in verse 20 by imploring us to likewise “be reconciled to God”.”
“Isaiah 25:10 says that Jerusalem will be blessed but Moab will be crushed like straw and left to rot.”
“[T]he word ‘all’ when relating to salvation likely refers not to every person but rather the ‘whoever’ persons who qualify for eternal life from all nations (whether Jew or Gentile).”
“‘Whoever’ implies, even assumes, that not everyone will inherit eternal life and accept Gods offer in His Son.”
“[T]here is not really any indication (at least from Jesus) that there will be any second chances awaiting the lost in the afterlife.”
“One has to acknowledge that the general perception is that the warnings of destruction in the Bible are final, eternal and irrevocable.”
This last one is the one I’d like to look at first, and it will bring with it a discussion of some of the other ones as well. I look forward to further engagement! Further up and further in!
“One has to acknowledge that the general perception is that the warnings of destruction in the Bible are final, eternal and irrevocable.”
ReplyDeleteYou and I have something of our approaches in common. We both have systems which, in our minds, elegantly and simply square one set of texts (annihilationist/universalist) with the other set. For you, it is the more corporate use of the word “all.” (We will discuss my perception of the efficacy of that move a little later on.) For me, it is the absence of any sort of evidence, as far as I can tell, that final judgment is in any way “final, eternal, and irrevocable.”
Reading through the list of texts you provide in support of the eternal irrevocability of final judgment, I find myself wondering what it is precisely you mean. To be sure, there is plenty of fiery destruction in those texts, but that, as far as I can tell, cannot hope by itself to imply irrevocability.
By way of example, in another place, you mention the contrasting fates of Israel and Moab: “Isaiah 25:10 says that Jerusalem will be blessed but Moab will be crushed like straw and left to rot.” I know that this is not one of the texts you are presenting as evidence of irrevocable judgment, but I think the fate of Moab can be instructive to that question.
In Jeremiah 48, this other prophet also discusses the judgment coming for Moab. There, we see repeatedly that Moab is to be “destroyed” (vv. 3, 4, 5, 15, 18, 32, 42). This destruction will be fiery (v45), thoroughgoing (vv 21-24), and unavoidable (v43).
Hopefully, we begin here to see the relevance of Jeremiah text to the texts you list as evidence of irrevocability; viz., there is a tight correlation between the judgment language here and the judgment language of those texts you offer. We even see some very tight parallels between these specific texts (Jer. 48:18, 32-33; cf. Heb. 6:8; Jer. 48:38; cf. Is. 66:24, etc.).
But the punchline of Jer. 48 comes at the end (where all good punchlines should), in v. 47. There we see God through the prophet declare:
47 Yet I will restore the fortunes of Moab in the latter days, declares the LORD." Thus far is the judgment on Moab.
Such restoration from destructive judgment might be surprising in isolation, but restoration following judgment is overwhelmingly God’s MO throughout the OT. Moab, Egypt, Assyria—Israel’s erstwhile enemies, all—as well as Israel itself, over and over and over again: all of these are judged, often destructively and in fire, often with language just like that of the texts provided in support of irrevocability; and all are, nevertheless, in spite of that language, restored. What this evidence builds for me is a very powerful inductive argument, culminating in an expectation: if God’s fiery, destructive judgments end in restoration over and over again as they do, an expectation of an exception in final judgment, absent any *incredibly* compelling language to indicate such an exception, looks very much like a case of special pleading to me.
To sum up, then, here again is the question from the opening of this screed (whose length I apologize for): What is the language in the texts you provide that speaks to you so unequivocally of irrevocability?
“[I]t is possible that the kings of the earth are not the same as those mentioned elsewhere in the book.”
ReplyDeleteOne of the best reasons, in my opinion, to suspect that final judgment isn’t irrevocable is also one of the reasons you seem to find particularly strong about our case, which is this narrative of the kings of the earth in Revelation.
You’ve already acknowledged severally the potency of this argument—which I appreciate. But I do want to make two notes: one questioning the evidence cited as a reason to think the KOE from Rev. 21 might be different from the KOE everywhere else, and one additional reason, not yet mentioned in these blog posts, to affirm they are the same.
You’ve said the KOE of 21 might be a different group from the KOE elsewhere in Rev. Your support for this possibility is Rev 21:4, that by the time the kings of the earth are bringing their glory into the New Jerusalem, the “former things have passed away.” The trouble with this line of reasoning is that it assumes an annihilationist interpretation of “pass away” (i.e. personal and of the whole person [as opposed to of the part of a person arranged inimically against God]; irrevocable). In a broad sense, this might be possible, but it certainly isn’t implied by the language. In fact, the things the verse lists as having passed away are death, mourning, crying, and pain—all non-personal present-age forces and realities that have served as obstacles to blissful union with God. Further, the very next verse makes the universalist-friendly claim that God in the Lamb is “mak[ing] all things new” (v5). These two texts may not prove universalism—I don’t think they do—but they do make the annihilationist interpretation of “pass away,” at least in this context, quite a lot less than certain, and maybe even quite unlikely.
By contrast, there is some additional evidence not yet named in the blog series to indicate that this is the same group of unrepentant sinners from the rest of the book. John is referencing in 21:24 a section of text in Is. 60. The pair of texts John seems to have in mind read:
Isaiah 60:3 (ESV) And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.
Isaiah 60:11 (ESV) Your gates shall be open continually; day and night they shall not be shut, that people may bring to you the wealth of the nations, with their kings led in procession.
But in John’s LXX reference, the language is simply “kings” (βασιλεῖς). John has actually changed it to “kings of the earth” (βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς)—a move unnecessary, and indeed passing strange if he means to indicate a different group; a move which almost seems intentionally designed to indicate, “Lest anybody be confused, these are the same folks we’ve been talking about this whole time.”
Because of what looks to me like the fragility of the objection and the overwhelming weight of the evidence (or so it seems to me), the idea that the KOE might be someone different in 21:24 strikes me as deeply unconvincing.
Thanks Tim, this is a great point and I was not aware of the link to Isaiah 60. I'm definitely going to look more into it. Sorry that I am slow on my responses here but you are giving me plenty to chew on.
DeleteThank you for the opportunity! And take your time! You don’t owe me anything, so I just appreciate the chance to talk with someone so gracious and smart about all this.
Delete“[T]here is not really any indication (at least from Jesus) that there will be any second chances awaiting the lost in the afterlife.”
ReplyDeleteThis one will be shorter, I promise:
Yes there is.
Glibness aside (sorry about that), this seems like a little bit of a strange claim for you, in particular, to make. After all, you reference Christ’s comparison of eschatological judgment to a debtor’s prison, which implies just such a post-judgment “second chance,” or more—a definite end to the judgment, giving way to a restoration of the freedom of the judged.
Similarly, the “many stripes/few stripes” image of Luke 12 (especially compared with Heb. 12:10-11) and the “salting with fire” that “everyone” receives in Mark 9 (which in context seems clearly to be the eschatological fire of Gehenna) speak to a judgment that not only ends, but also aims at purification and preservation.
Now, the reason I don’t spend a whole lot of time talking about these parables (and don’t intend to spend too much time defending a universalist interpretation of them here) is also a distinctive of our view that gives it an exegetical edge over annihilation in my opinion; viz., it is possible, and some seem only too ready, to squeeze too much juice out of those parables. We can build, if we’re not careful, some pretty shaky theology when our sources are symbols. For example, pressed to its conclusion, the symbol of moving mountains into the sea or handling serpents has brought many either to very strange worship practices or the abandonment of faith altogether.
But it seems like some of the most powerful texts of the annihilationist’s case (indeed, many of them presented in your post here) are exactly in the context of such great parable and symbol and hyperbole, whereas the most powerful texts of the universalist are in more systematic contexts (to the extent that any context in the Bible is “systematic”).
We’ll get into these texts a little bit more later...
“[T]he word ‘all’ when relating to salvation likely refers not to every person but rather the ‘whoever’ persons who qualify for eternal life from all nations (whether Jew or Gentile).”
ReplyDeleteI hinted above that there was a little bit of (honest, I am sure) misrepresentation of our view in your post. This is what I had in mind.
To begin, I am not one of those universalists who will stridently, and maybe a little facilely, insist “all means all!” as if that settled the issue. I do think that there are clear instances where “all” means something less than literally “every single individual.” I do also think, though, that without a clear contextual reason to suspect hyperbole or the like, the prima facie reading of “all” makes the universalist’s interpretation preferable. Consider this analogy from Keith DeRose:
“What exactly is “all” supposed to mean when it carries the “without distinction” sense? Some seem to hold that it then means “some from each group”, and where it’s people that are involved, each group seems to mean each nation. For others, it means something a bit more: That every person, regardless of which group she’s in, has a chance.
But it’s clear that “all”, at least when used properly, never means anything like that. Suppose some slippery character is being investigated, and hands over to investigators several files relating to the case under consideration. The slippery character then says that he’s handed over all the files about the case. It later turns out that, as the slippery character knew full well at the time of his statement, he’s held on to over half of the files. Suppose his reaction to this revelation is: “Well, I handed over several files from each of the 10 major categories into which they fell. And I didn’t just pick the least damaging files to hand over. Rather, I picked in a random fashion the files I would hand over from each category, so that each file, regardless of its category, and regardless of how damaging it was to my case, had a chance to be handed over. So, you see, I really did hand over all the files — all without distinction, that is; not, of course, all without exception.” This won’t fly, precisely because “all” just can’t mean anything like what the “all without distinction” crowd says it sometimes means.”
(http://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/)
All that said, I do find the non-universalist readings of these “all” texts plausible, at least broadly speaking, and thus do not refer to them as our strongest texts, even as I think the universalist reading preferable.
But this brings us to the “misrepresentation” alluded to above. When we get to the texts that I think are the strongest in support of our view, the strength is not in the word “all” at all. Rather, the strength is either in the peculiarly expansive language of the text (Phil. 2:9-11, Eph. 1:10-11) or in the parallel structure of the text (1 Cor. 15:22, Rom. 5:15, 18-19) or both (Col. 1:16, 20). The word “all” in these incidents is almost beside the point. If an author wanted to express “everything without exception in all of created order,” it would be hard to imagine stronger language than that of Phil. 2 (“every knee/every tongue”; “in heaven or on earth or under the earth”); and the parallel structure of 1 Cor. 15:22 and Rom. 5:15, 18-19 indicate that the extent of the first group is numerically identical with the extent of the second group, so that whoever dies in Adam is also made alive in Christ; whoever death came to, the gift of justification and life came to as well. In Col. 1, the extent of the reconciliation is coextensive to the extent of creation (cf. v16, v20), and this extent is all of pre-fall creation (“things in heaven and things on earth”).
This brings us naturally to another claim in the list I wanted to address, but I’ll get to that in the next post...
“1 Corinthians 15, also contain the words ‘in Christ’ which should be noted as the determining or qualifying factor in the statements.”
ReplyDeleteThis may be the commonest non-universalist interpretation of the text, but it simply won’t do. In order for “in Christ/in Adam” to limit, or “qualify” the scopes of their respective “alls,” that’s the word they would need to be modifying. In other words, they would have to be operating adjectivally. But due to placement, there is no ambiguity in the Greek about their function as adverbial prepositional phrases, modifying their respective verbs instead (“die”/“are made alive”), leaving the “alls” unmodified—and parallel (and thus equivalent in scope, as previously claimed).
The fact that Christ is the first fruits and then there are those who are his at his coming can likewise not hope to limit the scope—partly because a list of one set cannot by itself imply the exclusion of another set, and partly because there is another bit that follows “those who are his”: “then comes the end” (or maybe “the rest”). Patristic universalists read the final inclusion of even the unrepentant as telescoped into this “the end,” partly because the end of this text is the grand declaration that “God will be all in all.”
This, of course, brings us to another claim I wanted to discuss. But I’ll do that in the next post...
You seem to have a good grasp of the Greek words Paul uses in this chapter. Verse 23 is my main motivation for saying that those clothed 'in Christ' does not necessarily equate to all humanity. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on it, "those who belong to Christ" seems like an unnecessary addition to the text if it includes all who are in Adam?
DeleteWhat it all seems like it’s saying to me is (to interpretively paraphrase):
Deletev22 Universalism is true
v23 But there’s an order to it: Christ, then those who belong to him at his coming, then the rest, when death is finally done away with for good.
I will quickly note that there’s nothing I can see to force such a reading of 23; its just that the grammar of 22 seems to disallow the non-universalist interpretation there.
Beyond the grammar, though, a further problem with the “two groups” reading is vv. 45-49, which read as follows:
45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall[fn] also bear the image of the man of heaven.
Here we have the same "Adam/Christ" language as in 22, so there can be little doubt this is an expansion on the ideas there. But lest the objector point to 48 and say, "See?! I told you it was two different groups!" I'd point to 49, where it unambiguously is not.
“[T]hat creation will one day be 100% in harmony with Christ [. . .] is not limited to the teachings of universalism only and also fits well within the view known as conditional immortality.”
ReplyDeleteHere, I will cite Robin Parry directly, not bothering to put my own spin on it:
“Annihilationism removes that problem [of evil persisting in perpetuity] with the guillotine. There are no sinners in the new creation—God is all in all.
The problem is that God’s answer to evil here is not a gospel solution (i.e., to eradicate sin from the sinners), but a terminator solution (i.e., to eradicate the sinners themselves). This is a drastic way of winning creation—like winning all the votes in an election by killing those who would have voted differently. Hypothetically, God could annihilate the vast majority of human beings and then claim to have won a glorious triumph in a universe filled with creatures that love him.
But is this not a pyrrhic victory? The cost of winning was so very high. And given that this was a cost that God really did not want to pay, then it is as much a failure as a victory. It looks to me as if on this view sin and death have their wicked way in the end — forcing God to abandon and obliterate many of those he loves.”
(Four Views on Hell)
Thus, while tautologically true that if everything except for what God is in is destroyed, then all that is left is what God is in, this doesn’t appear to be the kind of solution to exclaim about or to be delighted by—or to claim as equivalent to the universalist’s vision of a loving God getting what a loving God wants; viz, his beloved—all of them.
I agree with you wholeheartedly here. Most annihilationists do see things this way and for me moving from 'God the torturer' to 'God the killer' does not harmonize with the image of God revealed to us in Christ. I have an Anabaptist influenced theology personally so I tend to look at the violent God portrayals different than most people, whether we are dealing with eschatology or Old Testament wars and more. I'm still fleshing out my theory here a bit but I take an orthodox approach in a sense where God is compared to the sun which melts wax and hardens clay (2 different components reacting differently to the same source).
DeleteSo I see God in the OT protecting us from His presence, lest we look on Him and die. We see it with the temple veil, the guy who touched the ark of the covenant, Lots wife (possibly) and similar stories. Of course the veil is torn when Jesus dies signifying that those clothed in Christ can boldly enter the throne room of God without been consumed (as light would consume darkness).
One could argue that what I am saying equates to God protecting us from Himself which in a sense is true but also rather unfair. As I said, I am still fleshing this out but for now it seems to make the most sense to me, it seems to line up with verses like 2 Thess 1:9.
They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His might.
I don't believe for a second that God desires that any will perish but it seems plausible that when those who have rejected God stand before Him they will be consumed. Jesus dying on the cross reveals that God has done everything in His power (beyond using force and coersion) to avoid this outcome. This perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality (I equate this to been 'in Christ' or clothed in Christ). Not sure if I am making my thoughts clear here? But it is one reason that I do not like the term annihilation as I see God as savior rather than as executioner. Your point is well noted though.
You’re making perfect sense. And I understand (and appreciate) this move which intends to ger God “of the hook,” so to speak.
DeleteThe philosophical problem with this move I think you run into is that even if this image is accurate, it still leaves us with a situation God actuallized. It means God actualized a world in which the irrevocable destruction of some of those he loves was possible in the first place, and I can’t think (although maybe you can) what could have constrained an omnipotent God-who-is-Love to actualize such a world.
The scriptural problem, as I’m sure you’re aware, is that it really looks like final judgment is something God is enacting Godself. Even in 2 Thess. 1 (one of the better anti-universalist texts, IMO), which you name, the context has a real retributivist flavor to it, making it really sound like something God is actively doing, not something that happens almost by accident.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat work brother. One aspect I've noticed typically gets mixed is being included in the work of Christ (Christ represents all mankind) VS all being saved at some point (Universalism). And I think the confusion of forgiveness, reconciliation, and salvation (being born-again). All mankind is forgiven because of what God has done through Christ (Eph 1:7; 1 John 2:2); as for reconciliation, God has reconciled mankind through Christ and now mankind needs to respond to that (2 Cor 5:18-20); regarding salvation/being born-again is the response that mankind does to what He's already provided (1 Tim 2:4; 1 John 3:23; Mark 16:16). I like this analogy: just because I receive in the mail one of those letters saying I've been pre-approved for the AAA card included... doesn't mean I am a member and can use it. I can carry it with me, but it won't help until I'm in need of roadside assistance and what I thought I had comes out that I didn't have because I NEVER RESPONDED to the mailing. Grace and peace to you all.
ReplyDelete