Universal reconciliation and ‘Flevo’ (III)

Originally posted on August 19, 2008 – by Andre Piet

I would like briefly to address in this weblog the objections that can be read in the ND against “the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation” (see earlier weblog).

When the kingdom of Jesus comes, everything that is not good will be done away with. In Revelation it says that the devil is first dealt with severely and referred to the fire. Then follows the final judgment over humanity. God wants all people to be saved, but humanity is responsible for its deeds.

The Bible book of ‘Revelation’ speaks of the Kingdom in which Christ will reign (chs. 20–22). But is that the end? No, for we know from Paul in 1 Cor. 15 that Christ must reign until… Until death, as the last enemy, is abolished and GOD becomes all in all. Not death, not lostness or human unwillingness, but GOD has the final word.

Justice must be done. Scripture speaks clearly about this.

Justice has to do with doing right, making right, and setting right. An endless punishment sets nothing right. God’s indignation and punishment are never an end in themselves, but are directed toward the welfare of His creatures.

Whoever now decides not to want to belong to Christ, will also later not be with Christ. That is the information we have from the Bible.

Pardon, that is the one-sided information that is usually provided at Bible schools and theological institutions. The Bible does not speak only of “eternal judgment” (read: eonian judgment), but also of justification, salvation, reconciliation, and vivification of all (Rom. 5:18; 1 Tim. 2:4; 4:10; Col. 1:20; 1 Cor. 15:22–28). And of a GOD who is able to accomplish what His love intends to bring about.

In Psalm 139 it says that God is both in heaven and in the unseen. And in 1 Peter 3 it says that Christ “went to the spirits in prison, to proclaim this to those who were disobedient in the days of Noah, when God patiently waited while the ark was being prepared.” But in these texts I do not read universal reconciliation.

One should not look for Moscow in Africa, nor for universal reconciliation in Psalm 139 or 1 Peter 3. About universal reconciliation we read in Colossians 1:20.

… There are various Bible passages on which he bases his opinion, but there are also others that assert the opposite. Certain matters from the Bible cannot be grasped by reason. That tension should be allowed to remain.

One should not choose between one group or another group of Bible texts, but “believe ALL” that the Scriptures say (see Luke 24:25). Indeed, for those who have no insight into the eons this seems “not to be grasped by reason.” After all, how can an “eternal judgment” be reconciled with “the reconciliation of all”? This dilemma disappears only when one realizes that eons in Scripture have both a beginning and an end, and that “eternal” therefore means “eonian” (see for example the expression “before eonian times”; 2 Timothy 1:9).

Speaker and lecturer Dr. Willem Ouweneel regards Hoogendijk’s statements and a recent column by EO figurehead Andries Knevel in the evangelical magazine Uitdaging about the question whether hell exists as “a postmodern phenomenon.” In doing so, the reasoning—“I cannot imagine that…”—is usually decisive, according to Ouweneel. (…)

Dismissing the resistance against the doctrine of endless condemnation as “a postmodern phenomenon” is nonsense. This resistance is, after all, as old as church history itself. Moreover, it is not primarily based on feeling or lack of imagination (even though it defies all logic), but on hard statements in Scripture.

The great danger is that Scripture no longer counts for anything. Although those who follow this line of reasoning always manage to find some Bible texts to support it.

A very weak caricature. For it is obviously not about a few isolated Bible texts, but about doing justice to all the data of Scripture. It is precisely the doctrine of endless condemnation that rests on a few Bible texts plus the necessary fallacy that ‘aion’ in such specific cases denotes endlessness.

“Some Christians have gone too far in the love of God,” Jongboom adds. “Then it goes like this: God is so loving, He surely will not do this.”

Love becomes sentimental when punishment, indignation, pain, judgment, and the like are reasoned away. But that is not at issue at all with universal reconciliation. Indignation and punishment are, however, never an end in themselves, but have (as every right-minded parent knows) an educational meaning. Or is one then sometimes “going too far in love”?

… One of the congregation members said to an unbeliever: I find it sad that you are going to miss God. That comes across completely differently than talking about the fire.

The suggestion is that the person who does not care about God now will later miss Him. But then it will be too late… But how so? Will God then no longer want all people to be saved? Does humanity finally come to repentance and then it turns out that God has also come to repentance?!

Also note the unbiblical idea as if it were about the human being missing God. The biblical message is that GOD misses the human being. The human being is lost. And GOD seeks what is lost until HE finds it. (Luke 15:4)

The Christian church has rejected universal reconciliation. This theory can hardly make clear what the value of Christ’s suffering and dying is, if faith in Him ultimately does not matter for being saved.

Here lies the crux of the misunderstanding concerning universal reconciliation. For universal reconciliation (derived from Colossians 1:20; apokatalaxai ta panta) means that God precisely through the blood of the cross will abolish all enmity and unbelief. Enmity is not an obstacle to being reconciled; it is a prerequisite! Precisely through the blood of the cross GOD will ultimately cause all enmity to melt away before His incorruptible Love!

Delen: