I suppose we will agree to disagree on what we read in the Bible. In order to believe universalism, IMO, one must ignore so many other scriptures that speak of judgment and separation that it is ludicrous.
I remain,
SOROS
1 Corinthians 15:22-28
In 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 we are told that, as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive. But Paul’s point is not to affirm that all die in Adam and all will certainly come to life in Christ, but rather that just as the death of each and all is due to Adam so the resurrection of each and all is due to Christ. He means simply that in every case where people receive life it is through their union with Christ. Against those who would dispute it Paul is arguing that it is upon the man Christ that the hope of resurrection is dependent, just as death is due to the man Adam. Wherever death and resurrection take place, they are due respectively to Adam and Christ. Death of course is universal, but this is not necessarily so of resurrection. Indeed, the next verses show that Paul thinks of the resurrection only of ‘those who belong to Christ’. The resurrection is followed by the subjugation of his enemies. Boring recognises all this, but argues that Paul is moving into the image of ‘God-the-king who unites all in his kingly reign.’ [Boring, The Language of Universal Salvation in Paul, Journal of Biblical Literature (1986), p. 280.] But it must be noted that subjugation is not the same thing as unification and reconciliation. Paul teaches the destruction of the cosmic forces opposed to Christ, including death.
Romans 5
All this is relevant to the understanding of Romand 5 where similar statements are made. Boring treats this passage in the same way as 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, and he argues that to 'receive' grace and righteousness (Rom. 5:17) is a case of 'passive' reception rather than of 'active' taking; he claims that lambano normally has this sense. This seems to misrepresent the evidence. There are places where Paul talks of receiving by faith (Gal. 3:2, 14) and where the verb appears to refer to the decision of the recipient (Phil. 2:7). Certainly Rom. 5:11 is in the context of justification by faith, and the rest of the passage must surely be understood within its context in Romans and not treated as an isolated statement on its own.
Furthermore, we must ask what is the force of 'all' in this passage. I suggest that 'all' in Romans 5 really has primarily in view 'both Jews and Gentiles and not just Jews': that is the point that Paul is concerned to make. He is of course referring to all mankind and not just saying 'some Jews and some Gentiles', but the thrust of the section is that Christ’s action, like Adam's affects both Jews and Gentiles. The one/many contrast is used of both Adam and Christ to show that both affect the whole human race and not just the Jews. So Paul's aim is not necessarily to assert that all will be saved but that the work of Christ is for all, and that he alone is the Saviour in virtue of the one saving event of his death.
Eternal life is the gracious gift of God in Christ, and it is received by faith. There is no question of all people automatically receiving life apart from faith in Christ.
Philippians 2:10-11
In Philippians 2:10-11 we are told that Christ will be exalted so that every knee will bow to him, and every tongue will confess that he is Lord. Boring argues that this text is not to be understood in the framework of the saved and the lost; it is not concerned with salvation but with universal acknowledgment of Christ as Lord - and here Boring sides with E. Best who states that 'for a man to stand on another's neck and compel him to confess he has been vanquished is not a victory compatible with the God of the cross.' Thus the text is in a way open to a universalistic understanding, but Boring would argue that it really belongs within the the encompassing image of God-the-king and its one-group eschatology'.
In assessing this argument we need to raise the question whether statements made within one encompassing image can overrule statements made in another. Boring rightly refuses to allow this move, arguing that the logical inferences of each image are never drawn; thus Paul does not push himself into explicit inconsistency. But it would be truer to say that in one set of images the question of salvation and loss is not directly in view. The question of the scope of salvation is not being raised.
Two points are important in the understanding of the passage. First, the text is making the point that all who confess God as Lord must also confess Jesus as Lord at his parousia. The language is drawn from Isaiah 45:23, which is also quoted with reference to God the Father in Romans 14:11. Now in the passage in Romans the reference is to facing judgment and giving account of ourselves to God. But in Philippians 2 Christ occupies this divine position as judge. The passage is primarily a statement about his supreme position under the Father. Whoever confesses God as Lord must give that same honour to Christ. In other words the point is not that everybody will confess Christ as Lord but that everybody who recognises God as Lord should. The second point is that vs. 10-11 are concerned with the purpose of God’s exaltation of Christ. They do not constitute a statement that everybody will in fact acknowledge Christ as Lord, but rather a statement that the purpose of God in exalting Christ is to win for him universal acknowledgement as Lord. As G. F. Hawthorne notes, 'how these purposes will be fulfilled, or when they will be fulfilled, or whether they will be fulfilled are not questions which can be answered from the statements of the hymn itself.' Nevertheless, we should note that later in this same letter Paul refers to people who are enemies of the cross and whose destiny is destruction (Phil. 3:18f.).
Colossians 1:20
In Colossians 1:20 God’s purpose is 'to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross'. Here we have a programme of reconciliation of cosmic scope.
The passage is basically about the place of the readers in the kingdom of God's Son. Formerly they were under the power of darkness, but now they have been rescued from it and transferred to a new ruler. They have been redeemed or set free, and this took place when their sins were forgiven. In vs. 21ff. they are said to have been alienated and become enemies through their evil deeds, but now they have been reconciled by the death of Christ so that they are seen as holy, blameless and irreproachable in the sight of God. We have two descriptions of the same basic event couched in different terminology. But the latter is introduced by what is apparently a digression, a description of Jesus which describes his role in creation and in reconciliation and which thus serves to place the readers in a cosmic context with the object of showing that they are no longer subject to any power other than Christ. There is a parallel between creation and reconciliation and in each case the effect is to stress the supremacy of Christ. The 'everything' in v. 20 must be the same as in v. 16, namely things visible and invisible, thrones, rulers, principalities and powers. They are described in neutral terms here, but elsewhere they are uniformly negative as powers opposed to God. In 2:15 Christ strips the principalities and powers and makes them a public spectacle; he leads them in his triumphal procession as enemies destined for death. Although Paul daringly applies the same metaphor to himself in 2 Corinthains 2:14, there is no reason to suppose that the evil powers are similarly redeemed by Christ.
(i) The main point that Paul is making is that it is only through Christ that this reconciliation happens. Since it is for 'everything', there is no room for any other reconciler or act of reconciliation.
(ii) In 2 Corinthains 5 reconciliation has to be accepted to become effective. This is implied here, for v. 23 goes on to speak of the necessity of remaining grounded in the faith and not moving away from it.
(iii) What is being described is what happened on the cross. It was the place where the powers were led in triumph. There is no future act of reconciliation here. A past event is described.
(iv) According to Paul’s earlier letters the creation is still in bondage to the powers of evil and groans to be released. Paul looks forward to the revelation of the sons of God and the redemption of their bodies: this is clearly the event described in 1 Corinthians 15 which is linked to the parousia. Paul has no expectations of any saving event after the parousia. Everything is summed up in that event. So there is an already/not yet tension in this act of reconciliation. Reconciliation has been achieved in the death of Jesus, but the offer 'be reconciled to God' continues to be presented to the world.
The situation envisaged in Colossians appears to be the same. What is being described is an act of reconciliation of cosmic scope which has taken place through the death of Christ. As a result of the proclamation of the gospel there has been a response by the readers of the letter, so that they are now reconciled and have come into submission to their Head, Jesus Christ. But the powers are still active. It is not said that they will all come under willing submission to Christ. Paul knows only the fate of judgment for rebellious mankind which refuses to accept the reconciliation. It is not clear whether there is reconciliation available for the hostile powers. The implication of 2:15 which describes the triumph of Christ over the powers at the cross is that they are under sentence of death. It may be best, therefore, to assume that when Paul speaks of the reconciliation of all things in 1:20 he is thinking primarily of the human world and the possibility of its turning away from the powers to be reconciled to God. On the other hand, it is conceivable that he envisages the possibility that the powers who have been defeated at the cross may turn in repentance towards Christ and be reconciled to God; but if this is what he means, he certainly has not said so directly and clearly but if they reject it they too come under judgment. But this produces a tension with 2:15.
Moreover, all this applies to the powers. There is nothing to imply that mankind are treated in any other way than on the basis of faith in Christ. There is no hint of a future act of universal reconciliation other than that which has already taken place in the cross. No future event is prophesied or described. Paul is dealing with what Christ has done, and with what has happened as a result to the readers.
Ephesians 1:10
Finally, in Ephesians 1:10 God’s purpose for the fullness of time is 'to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ'. The fullness of time may well refer to the end-time which was inaugurated by the incarnation as in Galatians.11 To 'sum up' is to bring everything together or perhaps to make everything new, to unite under one head, namely Christ. So this is the purpose of the coming of Christ, which has already begun to be put into operation. But there is no suggestion that this will include people who refuse to be included. The powers of evil are still active and hostile (2:2; 6:12) and they are under God’s wrath (2:3). Wrath is coming on the disobedient (5:6). As in Colossians, there is no basis here for believing that all mankind and all the hostile powers will in fact be reconciled to God. Paul's aim is to stress that all God’s plans come to fruition in Christ and that his sovereignty affects the whole universe.
The effect of our discussion is to show that, while Boring is right to draw attention to the variety of imagery used by Paul, the suggestion that, if pressed, the various images would present an inconsistent picture, is to be resisted. Nothing that we have discovered in the 'lordship' passages places a question mark against Paul’s use of the categories 'saved' and 'lost' or against his belief that there will be those who ultimately face the wrath of God. |
