Reconciliation of all according to the Reformatorisch Dagblad

Originally posted on December 26, 2025 – by Andre Piet

In a recent commentary the Reformatorisch Dagblad states that the doctrine of the reconciliation of all is “easy to refute,” because it would conflict with numerous Biblical data. In doing so, four points are mentioned: the reality of eternal punishment, the seriousness of sin, the righteousness of God, and the necessity of faith and repentance. That enumeration sounds firm, but precisely on these points the criticism proves to miss the core of the Biblical argument.

A clear demarcation is necessary here. With regard to the view of the Bible as the inspired Word of God, I distance myself from publications by Reinier Sonneveld and David de Vos. That starting point therefore does not form the basis for what follows. A discussion about the scope of reconciliation (Col. 1:20), justification (Rom. 5:18), salvation (1 Tim. 2:4; 4:10), and vivification (1 Cor. 15:22) can only be meaningful when Scripture itself is the point of departure, not personal experience, moral intuition, or the spirit of the age.

misconceptions surrounding “eternal punishment”

The Reformatorisch Dagblad misses the mark especially where it speaks about “the reality of eternal punishment.” That has a simple reason: it employs a meaning of the word “eternal” that the Bible itself does not know. In Scripture, “eternal” (Hebr. olam, Gr. aionios) does not refer to endless time, but to an aion: a period of time determined by God with a beginning and an end. The idea of an endless punishment does not rest on Biblical language usage, but on a later, philosophical concept of time.

At the return of Christ, therefore, no endless eternity dawns, but “the coming eons” (world ages; Eph. 2:7) begin, in which Christ will reign until death, as the last enemy, will be abolished and God will become “all in all.” All entirely according to God’s “set design.”

the seriousness of sin and God’s righteousness

The suggestion that within the reconciliation of all the seriousness of sin would be denied or trivialized is also incorrect. The Bible portrays an utterly sovereign God, Who disposes all things and also gives sin and suffering a place in His plan of salvation. That is not an excusing of evil, but precisely an acknowledgment that nothing escapes God’s hand — a point of departure that has traditionally been confessed in Reformed circles.

Nor is God’s righteousness done injustice. On the contrary: if God is righteous, then He does justice, sets things right, and brings matters to their proper end. Biblical righteousness is not the endless continuation of what is wrong, but the restoring and bringing to its goal of what has gone astray.

necessity of faith and repentance

Finally, it is incorrect that within thinking about the reconciliation of all the necessity of faith and repentance would be denied. Reconciliation takes place because God transforms estranged and hostile creatures into lovers of Him. In this He is not dependent on the human will, but is the One Who disposes all things and grants faith. The warnings of prophets and apostles stand entirely within that framework. They never pertain to an endless punishment or an endless judgment — a notion that Scripture simply does not know. “For a moment His anger endures, a lifetime His favor” (Ps. 30:6). Those are the Biblical proportions.

Delen: