THE CASE FOR CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM Towards a Better

THE CASE FOR CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM Towards a Better Understanding of the Biblical Arguments

An Inconsistent Set of Three Propositions (1) All human sinners are equal objects of God’s redemptive love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him. (2) Almighty God will triumph in the end and successfully reconcile to himself each person whose reconciliation he sincerely wills or desires. (3) Some human sinners will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from him forever.

Calvinism, Arminianism, and Universalism • Calvinists believe both that God will successfully save all the objects of his electing love (proposition (2)) and that some sinners will be lost forever (proposition (3)); they therefore reject the idea that God’s electing love extends to all humans equally (proposition (1)). • Arminians believe both that God’s redemptive love extends to all humans equally (proposition (1)) and that some will be lost forever (proposition (3)); they therefore reject the idea that God will successfully save all the objects of his redemptive love (proposition (2)). • Universalists accept both propositions (1) and (2) and therefore reject proposition (3).

Proposition 1: Prima Facie Biblical Support • • • 2 Peter 3: 9: “The … Lord is not willing that any should perish, but [wills instead] that all should come to repentance” (KJV). 1 Timothy 2: 4: God “desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. ” Ezekiel 33: 11: “As I live, says the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, [but desire instead] that the wicked turn away from their ways and live. ” Lamentations 3: 22 & 31 -33: “The steadfast love of the lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end … For the Lord will not reject forever. Although he causes grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly grieve anyone. ” See also I John 2: 2.

Proposition 2 • Ephesians 1: 11: God “accomplishes all things according to his will and counsel. ” • Job 42: 2: “I know that you [the Lord God] can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ” • Psalm 115: 3: “Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases. ” • Isaiah 46: 10 b & 11 b: “My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose … I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it. ” • Other texts suggest that God not only has the power, but will in fact exercise his power to bring all things into subjection to Christ (1 Cor. 15: 27 -28), to reconcile all things in Christ (Col. 1: 20), and to bring justification and life to all persons through Christ (Rom. 5: 18).

Proposition 3 • Matthew 25: 46: “And they will go away into eternal punishment , but the righteous into eternal life. ” • 2 Thessalonians 1: 9: “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (RSV). • Revelation 21: 8: “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. ”

Our Three Propositions (1) All human sinners are equal objects of God’s redemptive love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him. (2) Almighty God will triumph in the end and successfully reconcile to himself each person whose reconciliation he sincerely wills or desires. (3) Some human sinners will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from him forever.

The Issue of Heresy: Three Questions • If it is not heretical for Arminians to believe that God loves all humans equally (proposition 1), why should it be heretical for universalists to believe this a well? • And if it is not heretical for Calvinists to believe that God will successfully reconcile to himself all of those whom he sincerely wills or desires to reconcile (proposition 2), why should it be heretical for universalists to believe this as well? • And finally, If it is not heretical to accept proposition (1), as the Arminians do, and not heretical to accept proposition (2), as the Calvinists do, why should it be heretical to accept both (1) and (2), as the universalists do?

A Possible Answer to the Third Question • One might claim: The biblical warrant for proposition (3), or a doctrine of everlasting separation, is overwhelmingly greater than that for either proposition (1) or proposition (2). • If so, then anyone who wants to escape heresy would have to reject one of the other two propositions in our inconsistent triad. • But that does not seem to me true at all.

How I Read the Bible As a Universalist • The biblical warrant for proposition (1), that God sincerely wills (or desires) the salvation of all, seems to me overwhelming. • The biblical warrant for proposition (2), that God’s electing love will triumph in the end, likewise seems to me exceedingly strong. • And proposition (3) seems to me the weakest of the three. For only (3) seems to rest upon controversial translations as well as controversial interpretations; and whereas (1) and (2) seem to rest upon systematic teachings in Paul, the texts cited on behalf of (3) are typically lifted from contexts of parable, hyperbole and great symbolism.

Two Questions for Those Who See Things Differently • Which of our other two propositions would you then reject? Would you deny that God wills (or sincerely desires) the salvation of all human beings? —or would you deny that he will in fact accomplish his will (or satisfy his own desire) in this matter? • Why do you believe that the biblical warrant for proposition (3) is stronger than that for proposition (1) and that for proposition (2)? • It is not enough, in other words, merely to cite the standard proof-texts in support of (3). For if (3) is true, then either (1) or (2) is false.

A Concluding Comment To provide a full biblical defense for a doctrine of everlasting separation, one must show that the biblical warrant for (3) is stronger than that for (1) or stronger than that for (2)—a daunting task indeed. And I know of no one who has even tried to build any such comparative case as that. So why do so many regard it as heretical to reject a doctrine of everlasting separation from God, but not heretical to limit God’s love or to limit the scope of his ultimate victory? Which view does more, in the end, to undermine the glory and the majesty of God? End of Presentation

Our Three Propositions (1) All human sinners are equal objects of God’s redemptive love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him. (2) Almighty God will triumph in the end and successfully reconcile to himself each person whose reconciliation he sincerely wills or desires. (3) Some human sinners will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from him forever.

The Issue of Human Freedom • Not enough to identify a single necessary condition of free choice, namely that it must be causally undetermined. • Must also find a way to distinguish a free choice from a purely capricious or random event. • And anything that does this successfully will also limit the range of possible free choice. • A minimal degree of rationality is also a necessary condition of acting freely. • No one who is rational enough to choose freely could both experience separation from God (in the outer darkness, for example) and continue to regard such separation as more desirable than the bliss of union with God.

Interpreting the Bible As a Whole • Complex affair where some passages, authors, and themes are interpreted in light of others. • Two themes are particularly relevant for us: that of God’s judgment and punishment of sin, and that of Christ’s ultimate victory and triumph. • My claim: We all adjust our understanding of one of these themes in light of our understanding of the other. Christian universalists interpret the former in light of the latter. • So any interpretation of the Bible as a whole is as much an art and an act of the imagination, and as much the product of philosophical reasoning, as it is of historical and linguistic study.

Two Pauline Texts That Illustrate the Problem Romans 5: 18: Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all [humans], so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for [them] all. 2 Thessalonians 1: 9: They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might (RSV). John Murray, Commentary on Romans: Argues that, even though nothing in the context of Rom. 5: 18 justifies restricting the scope of the second “all” (literally “all men”), 2 Thess. 1: 9 requires that we restrict its scope nonetheless.

Reversing Murray’s Argument Consider another inconsistent set of propositions: (a) Paul wrote both 2 Thess. 1: 8 -9 and Rom. 5: 18. (b) 2 Thess. 1: 8 -9 teaches that some persons will literally be rejected forever and hence will never be reconciled to God. (c) Rom. 5: 18 teaches that Christ’s one act of righteousness “leads to acquittal and life for all men” and hence that all human sinners will eventually be reconciled to God. (d) There is no inconsistency in Paul’s teaching.

The Term “Receiving” in verse 17 • Does this term justify restricting the scope of the second “all” in verse 18? • Paul rarely used this term in the sense of “to take hold” or “to accept believingly. ” • Typically used it in a passive sense (not to be confused with the passive voice). • In 2 Cor. 11: 24 Paul thus wrote: “Five times I received [active voice] forty lashes minus one. ” Here he is the passive recipient of the 39 lashes. • In 5: 18 Paul describes the effect of Christ’s act of righteous act upon its recipients, namely all humans, and comparing it to the effect of Adam’s disobedience.

How not to translate 2 Thess. 1: 9 RSV: “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord …” NIV: “The Will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord …” • From whence comes this idea of exclusion? • The Greek “apo, ” like the English “from, ” can sometimes mean “away from, ” as when one tries to hide or conceal oneself from God. Ex. : Rev. 6: 16. • But our text includes no verb such as “to hide” or “to conceal” or any other device that would justify such a translation. • The relevant destruction is therefore something that comes from God and something that happens to an individual, not something that individuals do to themselves as they try to conceal themselves.

Comparing 2 Thess. 1: 9 with Acts 3: 19 • Acts 3: 19 speaks of refreshing times “from the presence of the Lord. ” o Here the relevant Greek expression is identical to what we find in 2 Thess. 1: 9. o Would anyone translate Acts 3: 19 as refreshing times “away from the presence of the Lord”? Of course not! The refreshing times precisely come from the presence of the Lord. o Just as the presence of the Lord brings refreshing times to the obedient, so it brings destruction upon the disobedient.

Destruction As a Redemptive Concept 1 Cor. 5: 1 -5: Paul commands that a man be removed from the congregation and handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. • Sounds like retributive punishment. • Given the harshness of Paul’s tone, we might never have guessed that he intended this for the man’s own good, had he not added: “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. ” • So here the concept of destruction is clearly a redemptive concept. • For just what is it, according to Paul, that God destroys when he destroys a sinner forever? Answer: It is the flesh, the old person, the sinful nature.

Matthew 25: 46 A common argument If eternal life is unending life, then eternal punishment must be unending punishment. The Fatal Flaw • The Greek “aiōnios” is an adjective, and it is the very nature of an adjective that its meaning will shift, sometimes greatly, depending upon the noun it qualifies. • Ex. : The English “everlasting” o An everlasting struggle would be a temporal process that is never completed and never comes to an end. o An everlasting change or an everlasting transformation or an everlasting correction would not be a temporal process that is never completed and never comes to an end. It might be an instantaneous event that terminates in an irreversible state. o So a lot depends upon the relevant nouns.

Comparing the Relevant Nouns • Life (zōē) is an end in itself. So eternal life would be a mode of life that, once achieved, never comes to an end. • But punishment in the sense of kolasis is a means to an end. So eternal punishment is eternal in its effect, not in its duration, as both annihilationists and universalists would agree. • According to William Barclay, kolasis was a common word for remedial punishment in Greek secular literature; it “originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. ” • If we take it that way, then kolasis is correction and eternal punishment is a form of punishment whose corrective effects literally endure forever.

The Use of “aiōnios” in the NT • Never signifies unending temporal duration. • Sometimes does imply temporal duration. Ex. : Rom 16: 25 -26, where Paul speaks of a mystery which was “kept secret for long ages (“chronois aiōniois”) but is now disclosed. ” • More normal use does have Platonic overtones. Ex. : 2 Cor. 4: 18: “For the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal” (KJV). • Most important point: God is eternal in the primary sense; God’s gifts, possessions, and actions in time are eternal in the secondary sense that they have their causal source in the eternal God himself. Ex. Jude 7.