Chapter 14 – Refinery: Separation and Unification

The previous chapter offered an historical overview of Christian universalism. This chapter will focus on the biblical data.

Separation

If you’re ready to refute Christian universalism with a litany of verses, let me quickly concede that two outcomes, involving a separation between the righteous and the wicked, appear to be clearly expressed in certain passages. After judgment the wicked will go to one place and the righteous will go to another place; the wicked will have a negative experience and the righteous will have a positive experience. For example:

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matt 7:13–14)

As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear. (Matt 13:40–43)

Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. . .” Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. . .” Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (Matt 25:34, 41, 46)

Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. (Jn 5:28–29)

Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. (Gal 6:8)

without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by God. (Phil 1:28)

He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you. (2 Thess 1:8-10)

He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” (Rev 21:6–8)

These references point to a double outcome. Some “will be destroyed,” others “will be saved.” Some “will rise to be condemned,” others will “will rise to live.” Some will “shine like the sun,” others will experience “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 22:13). “Weeping and gnashing of teeth” signifies deep sorrow and anger. They will suffer severe loss and miss out on joy.

Unification

So how can Christians who affirm ultimate reconciliation overlook these passages? They don’t. They see them, but they have been captivated by another set of Scriptures, which display a fascinating scene of universal unity.

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself. (Jn 12:32)

Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. (Acts 3:21)

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. (Rom 5:18)

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. (Rom 11:32)

With all wisdom and understanding, he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. (Eph 1:8–10)

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9–11)

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Col 1:19–20)

Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” (Rev 5:13)

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. . . . When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.  (1 Cor 15:22–28)

“Begin with the end in mind” is a common motto. What was God thinking prior to creation? What was his end goal?  Everything will be restored, all will receive God’s mercy, all things will be reconciled to God, everyone will acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, every creature will declare the praises of God and the Lamb, and God will be all in all. This universal reconciliation to God, this all-pervasive infusion of God—“all in all”—is the final goal for which God created all things. Everything starts with God and everything ends with God because he is the beginning and the end.

Could the reconciling and unification of all things under Christ exclude certain people? Does “all” not mean all? Does “every” not mean every?

Undoubtedly, “every” does not always mean every. When we say, “everybody was at the party,” we don’t mean it literally.  The key to properly interpreting all-inclusive words is context. What does the context reveal? Consider Paul’s statement in Romans 5:

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. (v. 18)

Notice how the argument works: “Just as . . . for all people, so also . . . for all people.” Paul is comparing the impact of Adam’s “trespass” to the impact of Christ’s “righteous act.” Both acts had global effects yet the results are polar opposite. Adam’s “trespass” resulted in condemnation, while Christ’s “righteous act” resulted in justification and life. Adam brought down all of humanity; Christ raised up all of humanity. If both references to “all people” do not have the same scope the argument falls to pieces. Hart says,

From the time of Augustine, for instance, it has been obligatory for devout infernalists to insist that in the space of a single verse (Romans 5:18)—of a single sentence, in fact—the word ‘all’ changes from a reference to every human being throughout the whole of time into a reference solely to the limited number of those elected for salvation, and does so without the least notice being given. One should simply know that that is what Paul meant to say. This is preposterous, obviously, but settled orthodoxies so often are.[i]

Further, while Paul has set up a comparison, he acknowledges that the comparison is impossible: “nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin” (v. 16). Christ’s influence on the human race is so vastly superior to Adam’s influence that there’s no competition.

All of this seems obvious so why do many miss it? They believe Paul has added a condition in the previous verse:

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! (v. 17)

Many argue that this statement qualifies the “all” with the condition, “those who receive . . .” and interpret “receive” as our believing acceptance. I will quote Paul in greater length this time so that you can follow the flow of his argument, paying special attention to verse 17.

¹⁵ But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! ¹⁶ Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. ¹⁷ For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

¹⁸ Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. ¹⁹ For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Here’s how I see this argument unfolding:

• Although it’s not customary for us to refer to everyone with the phrase “the many” (vv. 15, 19) in English, that is what Paul is doing in Greek. I don’t believe this is a controversial point. Hence the scope in verse 15 is universal with all dying “by the trespass of the one man” and the gift overflowing to all “by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ.”
• Christ’s gift can’t be compared to Adam’s trespass (v. 16).
• An a fortieri argument (arguing from the stronger case—“how much more”) is introduced. If death reigned through the one man, how much more will those who receive God’s grace and gift reign in life through Jesus Christ (v. 17).
• Paul now makes his main point from the preceding statements, “Consequently . . .” This point is explicitly universal in scope: one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people; one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people (v. 18).
• Verse 19 continues the universal theme but this time Paul returns to using the phrase, “the many.” “The many were made sinners . . . the many will be made righteous.”

So we have universal assertions at the start and end of this passage, and this includes Paul’s main point. And yet, many believe Paul is limiting his focus to a select group of people in verse 17. That doesn’t make sense of the flow of the passage. Again, Paul’s argument starts and ends with references to all people.

Further, Thomas Talbott adds,

John Murray has pointed out the “the word ‘receiving [in 5:17] . . . does not refer to our believing acceptance of the free gift but to our being made the recipients, and we are regarded as the passive beneficiaries of both the grace and the free gift in their overflowing fullness.” According to Paul, in other words, we no more choose to experience the beneficial effects of Christ’s one act of righteousness than we chose to experience the destructive effects of Adam’s disobedience.[ii]

This insight fits the context because Paul is emphasizing the impact of Adam and Christ on the entire human race. If this is right, who are “those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace”? Everyone.

Richard Bell writes,

Of all the Pauline texts this is perhaps the one that points most clearly to universalism. It is particularly interesting (and comforting!) that there is a form of double predestination not in the Calvinist sense that one group is damned and one group is acquitted. . . Rather we have a double predestination in the sense that all are damned in that they are in Adam, and all are acquitted in that they are in Christ.[iii]

 We will dive deeper into Paul’s statements in chapter 16.

Solutions

We have two sets of texts in the New Testament that seem to teach contrary things—separation resulting in a double outcome and unification resulting in a single outcome—so what should we do? Can they be harmonized? Should they be harmonized?

One solution is to deny that we have an apparent conflict. As we have seen, many argue that “all” doesn’t mean all. Essentially, some argue that “all” means all without distinction instead of all without exception. In other words, it means all types of people instead of literally all people. So, for example,  “God wants all people to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4) actually means “God wants all types of people to be saved.” But the verses don’t say “all types . . .”, they say “all” and “every.”

A second option is to leave this dilemma alone. Regarding the Roman Catholic Church, Richard John Neuhaus (1936–2009) writes, “The Church in her wisdom has not definitively settled these exegetical disputes.”[iv] Along these lines, Balthasar notes the two series of statements and writes, “It is not for man, who is under judgment, to construct syntheses here, and above all to subsume one series of statements under the other.”[v] The two series of statements refer to the following: first, “being lost for all eternity; the second, of God’s will, and ability, to save all men.”[vi] By “under judgment” Balthasar means that we are not above judgment “so that we might know its outcome in advance.”[vii] As support he cites Paul’s text,

My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God. (1 Cor 4:4–5)

Hence, Balthasar believes the cleft between the two series of statements should be left open. Historically, however, theologians have not been content to leave the matter alone.

A third option is to make a distinction within God’s will. Balthasar quotes G. Hermes who says,

The Church has always distinguished between God’s conditional will for salvation, which ‘wants all men to be blessed’—under certain conditions!—and his absolute will for salvation, which assuredly destines certain individual men . . . for salvation. In this sense, and in it only, are the two seemingly opposing statements of revelation to be harmonized.[viii]

To this distinction Balthasar offers the blunt reply, “But who, then, has asked you to harmonize here?”[ix] He then notes that this distinction has not been made by the Magisterium, but only by theologians of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. He proceeds by claiming that this differentiation is an outrageous blunting and fragmenting of God’s will for salvation.

A fourth option is to see the texts of separation as serious warnings that will not become a reality. For instance, God threatened to overthrow Nineveh in forty days with a statement that sounds unconditional: “forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown” (Jon 3:4). Yet the story continues, “When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened” (v. 10). Since one outcome is merely hypothetical, we do not have to reconcile two different outcomes.

Finally, Christian universalists believe that both sets of texts can be embraced by folding the separation texts within the unification texts. In particular, the separation texts are viewed as temporary and purposeful, occurring perhaps even for some indefinite age(s), followed by complete restoration. How else can we arrive at the scene of universal praise and reconciliation?

This means that terms like “death” and “destruction” refer to the remedial or correction process. What about the Greek word apollumi (destroy), frequently used by annihilationists to support their view?

Apollumi is used in Romans 14 in relation to one believer offending another believer.

If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. (Rom 14:15)

What does destroy mean here? Does it mean annihilated as some argue? Gerry Beauchemin notes that it is explained later in the same passage as causing a fellow believer to “stumble” or “fall” (vv. 20–21). Additionally, Beauchemin comments that it is the same word used in Luke 19:10, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”[x] Hence these verses show that apollumi doesn’t necessarily refer to something that is obliterated from existence. In fact, a person who is apollumied can be saved. The same principle applies to Jesus’ parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son in Luke 15. All were lost or apollumied and all were found or saved. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul reiterates this point: “hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord” (v. 5). Although a different Greek word is used for destruction (olethros), this verse also expresses the possibility that salvation can follow destruction.

While the refining process is occurring for some, others will be enjoying the life of the coming age. Thus, those in the purging fire will suffer genuine loss but will eventually be saved. If this is the correct approach, we can resolve this challenge by categorizing Paul’s comments about the future under two headings: (1) remedial stage (2) end goal. And the end goal displays a single outcome.

Summary

The New Testament contains two sets of texts—one affirming separation, the other affirming unification. While some believe it is best leave this problem alone, Christian universalists believe their approach allows them to embrace both sets of texts. “All” means all, at least in certain texts, which means the separation is temporary and remedial.

—————-

[i] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 163.

[ii] Talbott, 58.

[iii] Richard H. Bell, The Theology of Paul in Three Dimensions: Dogmatics, Experience, Relevance (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2022), 186.

[iv] Richard John Neuhaus, “Will All Be Saved?” First Things, August, 2001, accessed May 21, 2020, www.firstthings.com/article/2001/08/will-all-be-saved.”

[v] Balthasar, 18.

[vi] Ibid., 21.

[vii] Ibid., 13.

[viii] Ibid., 18.

[ix] Ibid., 18.

[x] Gerry Beauchemin with D. Scott Reichard, Hope Beyond Hell: The Righteous Purpose of God’s Judgment (Olmito, TX: Malista Press, 2016), 36.