The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Col 1, 1 Cor 15, Already-Not Yet, and the Parousia

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#26

PaulM begins with reference to Col 1:15-20. (I will assume readers have translations of the texts, and perhaps critical reconstructions of the original Greek text, already handy)

He understands (if not quite acknowledges?) the argument that the “all things” to be reconciled in verse 20 has the same scope as the “all things” created in verse 16 (they are even the same Greek term); and acknowledges that the verb for restoration presupposes a rupture in a relationship that needs restoring; and moreover that Paul uses the term (and a simpler variation of it, notably several times in Romans 5) precisely for the purpose of saving sinners from sin; and again, that the “peace made through the blood of the cross” at least seems to suggest that such a salvation is in view. (To this of course could be adduced, I would say, every other usage of the term and its cognates in the New Testament, not least of which is a few verses later in Col 1 itself.)

PaulM also grants that, in principle, there is no contradiction between things already being reconciled and in another sense the same things not being reconciled, especially if they are not reconciled yet. The same move is routinely allowed in other regards by non-universalist Christians; he gives the closely related and pertinent example of Christ having already defeated all His enemies, yet we still see enemies undefeated: they are not yet defeated, but they will be, and from God’s eternal perspective already are. This eternal perspective is itself a prophetic guarantee that all enemies will be defeated; and relatedly, Calvinists appeal to it just as universalists do for assurance that God will save from sin whoever He elects to save from sin.

I can affirm PaulM puts the case so far very fairly, as believed by Christian universalists such as myself and Robin Parry (writing as “Gregory MacDonald” in The Evangelical Universalist, whose argument PaulM directly addresses).

#27

What PaulM calls his first real problem (later this seems to be his only or chief problem) is that it seems clear, to him, that while the Bible does teach a two-age already/not-yet construct, the Bible nowhere teaches a continued not-yet in the age to come. We will actually be fully sanctified, which hasn’t happened yet, although from God’s perspective this has already been fully accomplished and so we can trust it will be accomplished in created history eventually; we will be completely and totally resurrected to eonian life, which doesn’t happen yet even though we already have eonian life; the enemies of Christ will be actually and fully defeated, which doesn’t happen yet even though from God’s perspective they are already fully defeated and so shall eventually be fully defeated in our natural history. Similarly, PaulM argues, the sheep and the goats are separated, which does not happen yet, but from God’s eternal perspective they have already been separated and so it shall certainly happen.

This rebuttal, it should be noticed, only holds up if the parable (for want of a better word) of the sheep and the goats involves final separation, or rather if the overall scriptural narrative (once pieced together) testifies to nothing past such separation. If the overall scriptural narrative does continue to end in reconciliation of all sinners past the separation of the sheep and the goats, then there is no problem. Similarly if (as I have argued elsewhere) that parable itself, in its narrative and thematic contexts, points toward expecting such a resolution, then that parable itself would count as evidence beyond other testimonies which happen not to point so far (such as, perhaps, the parable of the wheat and the weeds, or the two judgment parables preceding that of the sheep and the goats).

The point of PaulM’s counterargument, in other words, does not lie with finding fault with the exegetics of Col 1 per se, but with a charge of inconsistency between the exegetical result and the larger scriptural context.

#28

To this may be replied several things in counter-rebuttal:

0.) Most ultra-universalists would reply that they regard such prophecies preteristically, as having been fulfilled already in the fall of Jerusalem or something of this sort. This is not what I would reply (not being a preterist), thus I have numbered it “zero”, but I mention it for sake of completeness. PaulM is aware that other universalists would argue in this direction, and carefully clarifies that his article is not aimed at such universalists but rather toward purgatorial universalists such as Robin Parry and myself. No doubt the thrust of his argument toward preterist/ultra-universalists would be somewhat different.

Henceforth I will reply as a representative of the type of Christian universalist PaulM is specifically arguing against, and speaking for myself since (as Robin indicates in his own reply) not all of us are quite as certain about relevant details here as I am, nor necessarily for the same reasons.

1.) I tend to argue from narrative and thematic contexts that the scriptures do in fact testify to a continuing already/not-yet situation after the lake of fire judgment. The debate really would have to be over this material, among which I would include the unexpected example of the judgment of the sheep and the goats itself! (My recent debate with Calvinist apologist “TurretinFan” features further discussion along this line.)

2.) As a matter of fact, I argue from thematic contexts outside of narrative prophetic testimony, too, and certainly beyond isolated proof-text examples. I do not only appeal to Col 1, which may be said to establish the scope of sinners whom God chooses to reconcile to Himself (and to hint at the persistence), but rather I exegetically synthesize such testimony together with (for example) Rom 5, at least one portion of which (as I previously mentioned) Calvinists generally agree is talking about the persistence of God to save from sin all those whom He chooses to reconcile to Himself. Even if I did not think narrative prophecy points toward final salvation in a process continuing past the lake of fire judgment, I would argue that principles such as this should provide us an expectation for an extension of that eschatological history beyond what has been specifically revealed: they point toward a Z even if the narratives proper never went farther than X.

3.) Even if I did not put together an exegesis from levels of wider context (which PaulM is basically complaining isn’t happening in the universalistic argument from Col 1), I am somewhat unclear as to the principle PaulM is appealing to, for arguing that one set of testimony (apparently some narrative revelation of a final separation, over against apparently no narrative revelation of a continued not-yet in the age to come) trumps another set of testimony (apparent principle revelation involving resolution and not a final separation). Obviously there cannot be a simple parity of principle revelation, where one scripture states (not in a prophetically narrative form but as a revealed principle of fact) that there will be final separation, because that could be answered on its own ground that here are scriptures apparently testifying otherwise. The case would be at a deadlock: “these scriptures say there will be no final reconciliation of all sinners to God”, “these scriptures say there will be”. Which one is correct, or if they are not mutually exclusive how is that in a way that does not reduce the meaning of one or both of them?–otherwise the meaning of one must be properly constrained by the meaning of the other. Unless there is a resolving principle, PaulM’s rebuttal against the universalistic argument here would be solvent for any Calv or Arm argument by the same token.

PaulM seems to appeal to narrative details as assurance of breaking the deadlock, but on what principle?–why would statements of fact not constrain what the narratives (often poetically or analogically) reveal?–and so we are back to competing statements of fact again. Even if I conceded and withdrew my counter-rebuttals 1 and 2, PaulM would need to expand his argument somewhat to clarify why it doesn’t end in stalemate.

(To which I would add that I reckon soteriological details within the coherency of orthodox trinitarian theism, so that if a soteriology runs against some point of ortho-trin then either the soteriological option must fail as part of a coherent theological understand, and so be regarded as a misunderstanding, or else ortho-trin must be rechecked itself on suspicion of falsity. In discussion with someone like me, PaulM would have to be prepared to make a deadlock breaking appeal on similar or superior grounds.)

4.) Not even counting those replies, I observe that PaulM’s own presentation may go farther than he is expecting. If he insists that in the age to come the present sufferings of this age will be absent, and that the present sufferings (which naturally must include suffering the results of punishment for sins, even for the elect) will be gone; and that the old (including the old sinful nature of man) is completely passed away and all (including sinners, or not including sinners??) shall be made new; and that things of this age (which are routinely regarded as sinful in the scriptures) are only temporary, and shall pass away and not be part of the new age; and that the age of all this to come has broken into this present age of evil, inaugurating and guaranteeing (in an already/not-yet fashion) the age to come-- {inhale!}

–I most certainly agree!

But then, I must either consider an already/not-yet process to continue in the age to come for a while in regard to after-effects of this evil age until that residuum has passed away; or that all those things immediately pass away upon the arrival of the age to come. Which would be purgatorial universalism on one hand, or on the other hand either ultra-universalism or perhaps annihilationism.

#29

PaulM retorts to Robin (from TEU), that Paul (the apostle) can hardly be imagined supposing that the temporary elements of this present age are a continued, ongoing reality in the age to come. But this means either evil must cease, or that evil is on an age-transcending ontological par with the good!–which no supernaturalistic theist (including no trinitarian theist, whether Calv, Arm or Kath, Protestant or non-Protestant) ought to be prepared to believe.

PaulM also attempts to leave aside the point that “subjugated and non-compliant enemies can be said to be at peace with the conqueror”; which I suppose is just as well, for I do not foresee any victory approaching for an argument that enemies who are non-compliant in their spirits toward the Father of Spirits are nevertheless at peace in their spirits with the Father of Spirits Who does not accept internally rebellious lip-service about being at peace with Him. But since PaulM does not actually appeal to this, neither will I actually rebut it. {wry g}

At any rate, PaulM’s rebuttal of a (purgatorial) universalistic exegesis of Col 1, depends not on a fault in the Kath exegesis of the verses as such, but solely depends on (what he thinks is) a lack of support in exegesis elsewhere indicating a process of salvation continuing in the eschaton. This rebuttal, as I have indicated, would not be ironclad in principle even if the universalist acknowledged no such scriptural testimony–an argument could just as well be made that scriptures indicating a total victory of salvation, whether in piecemeal proof-texts or (which should be preferred) a large-scale contextual exegesis of the scriptural data, point toward just such an already/not-yet process continuing in the age to come, over against narrative or other thematic testimony which would be thus judged to be true as far as they go but to stop short of the full result (and so mis-interpreted if the soteriology also stops short of universal salvation from sin.)

But PaulM’s rebuttal is of no use (in itself) at all for a universalist such as myself who argues further for such testimony. And even Robin Parry makes some indication in TEU, although tentatively so, at recognizing such testimony, such as in regard to the final chapters of RevJohn. I myself would argue far beyond that; but then the real debate is not on such an exegesis of Col 1 (or, as we shall see, 1 Cor 15), but on those other scriptures.

#30

PaulM also does very fair justice to a basic (and purgatorial) Christian universalist argument from the principles of 1 Cor 15:20-28: the “all” made alive in Christ is equal in scope (so far as humanity is concerned anyway) to the universal “all” of those who die in Adam; the being “made alive in Christ” is read as being saved from sin unto glory; thus all humans shall be saved from sin unto glory. Moreover, this set of verses testifies that being subjected to God primarily (as in the example of the Son) means loyal subjection, and the set testifies that all enemies shall eventually be subjected to the Father in the Son by being subjected to the Son (by the Father) and by the Son. It is not an illogical exegetical inference that the subjection will involve total loyalty to God in cooperation with the Son.

PaulM acknowledges at least the face value feasibility of most of this, I think–except I notice he allows no weight on the testimony of process here.

In his remarks on an argument from Col 1, he complained, not that the exegesis in itself was faulty, but that the result conflicted with testimony not only totally silent but (so far as PaulM can tell) totally against the concept of a process of salvation continuing after (or during) the eschatological judgment. But here, purgatorial universalists often argue (myself included) that such a process is being testified to by (the apostle) Paul!

PaulM reiterates that his critique of a Kath interpretation of Col 1 was that no such already/not-yet distinction is testified regarding the age to come: it does not apply to the age of consummation. He claims that similar issues arise with 1 Cor 15. But then instead of considering a purgatorial universalistic argument regarding 1 Cor 15, which in my experience is rarely if ever anything if not an argument from this text about process in the age to come, PaulM begins by merely reiterating that there can be no such process, quoting Graeme Goldsworthy on the topic. (But not on interpreting 1 Cor 15, notably!)

#31

A few other scholars are quoted in argument that the Parousia is as already completed as the Incarnation-Crucifixion-Resurrection-Ascension, and indeed that these are holistically one great divine act; but I have no problem in the least agreeing with that. The finishing of one portion of that act is assured (from our temporal perspective) by the other portions having occurred; I have much less than no disagreement there either. Moreover I would affirm that from God’s divine perspective the act is of a piece with the self-generation of the Trinity, and then secondarily, in an ontological sense, with the creation of a not-God system of Nature, as well as with the creation of derivative sentient creatures within that Nature. (I have learned my lessons from Lewis quite well!–and I strongly doubt that a Calvinist, carefully considering the issue, would disagree.)

This all being granted and robustly affirmed by me, where then is the disagreement? Is it not on what the Parousia entails? But even Calvinists affirm and insist (I think PaulM himself acknowledges this in passing, in is article), that the age of the Parousia has already begun.

The final age began already, almost two thousand years ago, with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples. And began several days previously to that, with the Ascension. And began several weeks previously to that, with the Resurrection. And began a few days previously to that, with the sacrifice on the cross. (“Today you shall be with Me in the paradise”!) And began a few years previously to that, with the start of Jesus’ ministry. (“The kingdom of God has come near!–repent and trust in this good news!”) And began a few days previously to that, with the baptism of Jesus unto a commitment to the sending away of sin. And began a few decades previously to that, with the birth of Jesus. And began a few months previously to that, with the Incarnation of Jesus. And even, depending on how one reckons the early testimony of Genesis, began shortly after God’s creation of rationally active humans!

We have been living in the final age already for almost 2000 years, maybe much longer–and yet there is a process of salvation going on during all this time!–which is not to be contradicted to that salvation having been, from God’s Most High reality and vantage, already completed.

If I am asked to believe (which all Christian scholars do, Catholic and Protestant, Arm and Calv), that the final age has in a sense been going on already with a process of salvation; and if, by the way, I am asked to believe (which a number of Protestants at least, both Arm and Calv, also do–and which I lean more toward agreeing with than not, incidentally) that Christ shall come and reign for a very protracted period of time before the lake of fire judgment–then why is it that I am asked to dis-believe, on principle, that the Parousia cannot involve a process to completion after the lake of fire judgment?!? (If it comes to that, even the “final” age is itself only part of the one great Age of God!)

#32

PaulM’s references to the scholars so far, do not, therefore, constitute anything even remotely like a problem for me. On the contrary, it reminds me that we live in a final age of ages already.

PaulM and I agree (against Arminians generally on this point) that God will continue to finish His finishing until it is finished, and will not stop short of that. We disagree on what that finishing is. Col 1, by PaulM’s own acknowledgment of analysis, can be very reasonably read as pointing to what that finishing of the finishing will be: universal salvation of sinners from sin. PaulM replies that Col 1 does not indicate a process, and that a process is required, and so far as he can see no such process is testified elsewhere. But then he goes to the 1 Cor 15 argument, which heavily involves eschatological process–and instead of discussing the universalistic claims of eschatological process here, PaulM quotes scholars to the effect that (for reasons they do not coherently explain in any connection to 1 Cor 15) there can be no more process in the final age after an ongoing final age of similar processes; and then quickly references six New Testament sets (without discussion) as though they not only do not discuss eschatological process during/after the Second Coming, but intrinsically shut down the possibility of such a process.

After having salted the pizza with asserted denials that the final age cannot in principle involve a process of salvation, PaulM briefly mentions a couple of details from 1 Cor 15. But, while his report of a universalistic case from the principle logic of this passage was fair enough, he did not mention that this case also typically involves some notion of eschatological process.

For reference, then, I will combine the development of the logical principles with an exegeted process from those verses.

#33

1.) “Christ has been raised out from-among the dead, the Firstfruit of those who are reposing.” The term “Firstfruit” promises that at the minimum there will be others afterward; and the cultural connotation is that of a promise from God that all the harvest will certainly follow. (It is for gratitude about this promise that the Firstfruit offering is made.) This is a promise of ideal persistence from God; the open question would be how large a harvest is intended, not whether the harvest will succeed. (This is also, by the way, an undisputed and non-contentious example of process: first Christ then all the rest of the harvest later, however much that is.)

2.) “For since in fact through a human came death, through a human also comes the resurrection of the dead.” The ‘for’ connects this thought as an explanation of the implications of the previous verse. A next logical question would be whether, by comparing Christ to Adam in this way, Paul really means to compare the relative scopes of condemnation and salvation as being on par with each other.

3.) “For even as in Adam all are dying, thus also in Christ shall all be vivified.” The line of thought continues with another ‘for’, and appears to emphatically affirm the scope that the prior verse might have suggested: even as all die in Adam, thus also shall all be brought to life in Christ. The scope of what all means in the first clause dictates the comparative scope of what all means in the second clause, by means of the “even as / thus also” comparison. But while people are presently dying (present tense) in Adam, all being made alive in Christ is something expected in the future. The persons in a historical fashion indicate a process, but the verbs even moreso.

4.) “Yet each [shall be vivified per the preceding verse] in his own class.” Again a process.

5.) The sequence begins with Christ the Firstfruit.

6.) Thereupon {epeita} the ones of Christ in His presence. The term, although relatively rare in the NT (about a dozen occurrences but across numerous ‘families’), is indisputably an adverb of sequence, and in fact is an even stronger version (‘on-after’) version of a more standard (but also relatively uncommon) adverb of sequence {eita}. Paul is going out of his way to emphasize the sequential process, and even appears to be indicating a logical connection between them: because Christ is vivified, so shall be the ones in His presence. The latter is explicitly grounded “on” the former.

7.) Thereupon {epeita} the consummation. This is a bit more vague, and might depend on what “the ones in His presence” previously mentioned means. The departed spirits already with Christ? All the ones belonging to Christ (and so in that sense already in His presence)? The same strong progressional adverb is used as before, implying a causal sequence of some sort, too: the ones belonging to Christ contribute to the bringing-to-life of the consummation. The “thereupon” directly points to the “consummation”, whatever that means, being a third class of those being vivified.

8.) Although Paul does not (here anyway) explain who the “consummation” are who shall be brought to life after (and partially thanks to) the ones who are of Christ in His presence, Paul does give some idea next of when this consummation will happen: “whenever He [Christ] shall be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father” and “whenever He should be nullifying every sovereignty and every authority and power.” Until that happens, or has happened, the consummation will not be vivified.

9.) “For He [Christ] must be reigning until this one should be placing all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy is being abolished: the death.” Whatever “the death” means, it is the final enemy and is being abolished at the time Paul is writing, but is not yet under the feet of Christ in some significant fashion. Similarly Christ is reigning right now, but shall stop reigning in some significant fashion when all enemies, including the final enemy, are placed under His feet in some way that they are not already under His feet. This all points directly to a continuing process, that will not be finished in some significant way until after the being-brought-to-life of those who are in the presence of Christ. Notably, after indicating a third class of those who are being vivified (apparently thanks in part to help from those who belong to Christ in His presence), Paul has not spoken of anyone but rebel entities who still have some kind of status change to be made before Christ can stop reigning (in some significant fashion) and give up the kingdom to the Father (in some fashion He is not already giving it to the Father); and indeed the status of these rebels has to change before the “consummation” can be “vivified”. What is this status change? The rebels have to come under the dominion of Christ in some way that they were not already during the reigning of Christ. Once that happens, Christ will stop reigning in some sense; not until then.

10.) “For He subjects all under His feet.” Paul goes on to clarify after this, that this does not mean the Father is subject to Christ of course. But the implication is that all other persons are under His feet. That includes those who belong to Christ!–being subjected under His feet is not inherently a hurtful or hopeless thing. This is reinforced by the next statement, too.

11.) “Now, whenever the all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to the One Who subjects the all to Him, so that the God may be all in all.” Again there’s a process: first the all must be subjected to Christ, in some fashion that the all is not already subjected to Christ and has not already been subjected to Christ at the bringing-to-life of those who are already in Christ’s presence. Then Christ subjects the all to the Father, in some way that the all is not already subjected to the Father!–the result being that God will be all in all, in some way that God is not yet all in all.

#34

There is less than no mention here of anyone remaining unsubjected to Christ, or of an enemy being finally undefeated. And the eventual subjection of all to Christ, which won’t happen until sometime after a resurrection of those who are in Christ’s presence (thus post-mortem in some sense), is a subjection of a sort that hasn’t happened for at least some persons yet up to then, and without which Christ cannot subject Himself to the Father in some way, specifically so that God may be all in all (in some way that God is not already all in all). The subjections of Christ and of the all in Christ are also presented in direct parallel, without a contrast of quality between them, as though some are subjected only in an exterior fashion while remaining unsubjected in their hearts.

Nor is annihilation per se spoken of: the nullifying and abolishing of all enemies is described as being put under the feet of Christ, in some way parallel to the righteous being under the feet of Christ and subjected to Christ and subjected to the Father in Christ. The annihilation of personal enemies here would not fit the imagery or thematic logic (even though otherwise it could theoretically be implied in the language of nullification and abolishment.) Impersonal enemies might be annihilated; personal enemies are subjected to the Father in Christ somehow.

The structure can be presented in this fashion:

1.) Before Christ’s own resurrection: Christ reigns but not in some fashion completely; Christ submits all to the Father but not somehow completely; the Father puts all under Christ but not somehow completely; God is all in all but not somehow completely.

2.) After Christ’s own resurrection: basically the same situation so far (compared to the final result).

3.) Some come to the presence of Christ but have not yet been vivified themselves: basically the same situation so far.

4.) Those in the presence of Christ are brought to life: yet still basically the same situation so far.

5.) Christ is reigning after the bringing to life of those in His presence: yet still basically the same situation so far.

6.) Christ is nullifying every other power and authority and rule, and the final enemy (“the death”) is being abolished, and the Father is putting all enemies under the feet of Christ: yet still basically the same situation so far.

7.) The Father finally puts “the all”, including all enemies, under the feet of Christ, in some fashion that they weren’t already under His feet.

8.) All enemies and opposing rules are finally nullified and abolished, in some fashion they weren’t already up to that point.

9.) Christ stops reigning in some fashion, and subjects everything (including those finally nullified and abolished enemies, in parallel with those who are loyal to Christ), to the Father, giving up the kingdom to the Father, in some way that Christ wasn’t already doing.

10.) Now the consummation is vivified, in some way that couldn’t be done until these other things were done. The ones who are in Christ’s presence and had already been vivified will be contributors to this final vivification somehow.

11.) Now “the God” can be and will be all in all, in some way that the omnipresent God wasn’t already all in all.

12.) And now all the relevant not-yets (although also already true, especially from God’s eternal perspective) are ended.

Christian universalists have interpretations of this data that take account of the processional stages testified by the data; that keep subjected enemies in existence to be under the feet of Christ and subjected to the Father in common union with the subjection of Christ Himself (a subjection even Christ cannot do in some way without this subjection of His enemies which hasn’t happened up to that point); and that don’t leave over unsubjected people at the end of the process so that less than “the all” is subjected to the Father in and by Christ, nor less than “the all” is subjected to Christ by the Father, so that God after all is not all in all.

In order to have even merely competitive (much moreso superior) interpretations, Calvs (like PaulM) or Arms will have to arrive at a result no less than this.

Does PaulM’s exegesis do so?

#35

It would be easier for me to say yea or nay about this, if I could find an exegesis of 1 Cor 15’s relevant verses in his article! Unfortunately, if they’re there, they are hidden from my eyes.

PaulM asserts without discussion of 1 Cor 15 in detail that “Jesus’ return is not followed by an undetermined amount of time where his enemies are still being put under his feet and subjugated.” But I can demonstrate the details indicate otherwise.

We agree of course that, per 1 Cor 15:24, Jesus comes and then turns the kingdom over to the Father; but the context has quite a bit more to say than that, including that the consummation of those vivified cannot occur until this happens, and that this cannot happen until all enemies are put under His feet, all of which happens after the vivification of those who are in the presence of Christ.

Similarly, we agree that the second coming ushers in the restoration of all things; and I certainly find this being talked about (if not with that exact phrase), in 1 Cor 15. But PaulM doesn’t seem to really mean the restoration of all things but only of some things, other things remaining permanently unrestored–an idea directly foreign to the language of 1 Cor 15 in detail.

Certainly PaulM quotes from a number of scholars, but as noted before none of them seem to be directly addressing an exegesis of the verses in question. They are all denying, of course, that any verses (naturally including these) can point toward universal salvation of sinners from sin, but the impression is that this notion is being, at best, imported into the understanding of 1 Cor 15 – and yet still not discussed in any detail!

#36

Having not at all covered the details of the verses, and having pretty directly imported in non-universalist assumptions (or conclusions perhaps) about final judgment, PaulM turns to talk about a problem supposedly arising “when we substitute in evangelical assumptions about the final judgment”. Not that he discusses this in direct comparison with the details of 1 Cor 15. He only asserts again that universalists “push elements of the already-not yet into the realized not yet which will be the consummated kingdom and not the ‘not yet’ anymore”, and that “On universalist assumptions, God’s will is still not done even after Christ has returned and handed the kingdom over to the Father.”

But of course universalists (in my experience generally, and myself specifically) do no such thing. I know perfectly well that the consummation is the end of the not-yet. And I absolutely affirm (moreso than I can think of any non-universalist of any shade doing) that God’s will is done altogether by all after Christ has handed over the kingdom to the Father.

I can also see from 1 Cor 15 (to give an example I would think is pertinent to this stage of PaulM’s article, on supposedly faulty universalistic interpretations of 1 Cor 15) that the consummation involves someone being brought to life; and that this cannot happen until all enemies are put under the feet of Christ in some way that they aren’t already under the feet of Christ and in some way parallel to the righteous being already under the feet of Christ; and that until then God’s will in fact is not altogether done by all. Until then there are some very obvious not-yets being talked about in those verses, including that death has in some fashion not-yet been defeated after Christ’s return. But then, I go on to clearly teach (in conjunction with 1 Cor 15) that death in every conceivable sense (spiritual, physical and as a euphamism for the chief rebel angel), shall certainly be defeated in a way cogently beyond how “the death” has already been, and will have already been defeated (at Christ’s return to reign in some way that He is not already reigning–before He stops reigning in some significant sense.)

Whereas, I don’t see PaulM indicating any way in which “the death” is defeated beyond how “the death” has already been defeated; and on the contrary his result tends rather to indicate that “the death” shall remain permanently undefeated in one or more ways!

#37

PaulM thinks that at the very moment of Christ’s return, God’s sovereignty “will finally become an undisputed reality in the New Jerusalem” (quoting from T. D. Alexander). No doubt no one in the New Jerusalem disputes that reign; but obviously everyone still outside the New Jerusalem disputes that reign to some degree, or they would be loyal servants of God (and allowed into the New Jerusalem)!

Certainly I agree that God’s sovereignty will finally become an undisputed reality; I agree with 1 Cor 15 about that as well as with other scriptures, OT and NT both. But I really do mean an undisputed reality, not a secretly or even overtly disputed reality. And that just isn’t true when Christ comes again–not at first.

Peculiarly, PaulM complains, “But if there are still unredeemed ‘children of God’ suffering in hell, the effects of ‘the present time’ still persist (on universalist assumptions).” He does not bother to mention how unredeemed sinners suffering in hell, who began as sinners in this present time, do not count as the effects of the present time still persisting. (Nor do any of his citations of authors, so far as I could find, incidentally.)

Just as strangely, PaulM complains that on “universalistic assumption” (note that he continues to treat this as assumptions, not as inferences from anything), “creation is set free from its bondage, while many children of God are not. If creation is only set free from its bondage to decay when all of God’s children are set free, then this implies that we will inherit a decaying new creation after Christ returns, only to get the freed creation after some undetermined amount of time post-return.”

But on non-universalist plans, many sinners are not set from from bondage even though creation overall is (supposedly) set free from bondage, and God’s children will inherit a creation where there will always be decaying old creation after Christ returns! Unless they are annihilated out of existence altogether, they will always exist somewhere in God’s creation even if spatially apart from God’s children, and so will be part of the creation inherited by God’s children, even if behind doors kept locked so that God’s children won’t see the rotten old creation still lingering on. But even if they are annihilated, many sinners are not and never will be set from bondage even though creation overall is (supposedly) set free from bondage.

Shouldn’t the complaint here be that non-universalist soteriologies violate Romans 8 in principle (since on any non-universalist plan not all creation will be set free from bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God), rather than that universalist soteriologies violate some completely unstated immediate result not actually mentioned in Romans 8?! No universalist in my experience, least of all myself, claims that all God’s creation is redeemed before all God’s children (who are part of God’s creation) are redeemed, nor would I even imagine arguing that from Rom 8.

It is in any case very strange that PaulM should complain that, on purgatorial universalist plans, we must still pray that God’s will shall be done after Christ’s return, as though all men are already doing God’s will, and citing Rev 21 as evidence that we shall not need to pray for this anymore (which I agree it testifies to as the eventual result), when Rev 21 also states that as the Lord God Almighty is among men (which PaulM takes as evidence against needing to pray that God’s will should be done on earth as well as in the heavens) so shall there still be those outside the gates of the New Jerusalem who (unlike those redeemed kings of the earth!) cannot come in because they still refuse to do the will of God! I do not forget those people are there. (Neither apparently do those of the people of God exhorting them to wash their robes and slake their thirst in the river flowing out of the never-closed gates, so that they may obtain entrance into the New Jerusalem and eat of the leaves which are for the healing of the nations.) If I, the universalist, do not forget they are there, not doing the will of God, maybe the complaint should not be against my ineptitude in expecting people to still not be doing the will of God after the return of Christ.

#38

PaulM concludes with some anticipated objections, none of which anticipate my objections. I don’t deny that any go to hell after Jesus’ return (or before it either). I don’t claim that the assignment to hell and the subsequent afterlife conversion happen immediately with everything else that happens with Jesus’ return (which I agree would not be substantially different than the first objection).

And I have less than no problem “admitting” that the already-not yet continues through in the age to come, precisely because I find support for it in scripture (as well as somewhat expecting it metaphysically although not decisively so), including in one of the scriptural sets PaulM was supposed to be analyzing “universalist” usage of but didn’t. And so my defense is not ad hoc. It might still be mistaken, but first it must be considered and not denied in a presumptive fashion!

It is, of course, entirely fair enough that if PaulM sees no warrant to even postulate (much less infer) that the already/not yet continues on into the age to come, and that such would be needed to uphold purgatorial universalism (there are ultra-universalists who regard themselves as evangelicals on the ground that they think scripture testifies to that instead, but that is a whole other matter that I do not agree with myself), then logically PaulM should reject believing universalism on a lack of that warrant.

But I think an actual look at 1 Cor 15 (among other scriptures) is warranted, before dismissing our beliefs on this topic as scripturally unwarranted.

(Coda: as to why Robin in his reply did not engage 1 Cor 15, I have no idea. But the interpretation I have presented is pretty standard among us, insofar as we’re purgatorialists. Robin is apparently more tenuous about it than I am.)

JRP

The Col 1, Rom 5 syllogism
#39

PaulM, replying briefly on his journal, acknowledges that the key issue here is whether the scriptures do testify to any relevant continuing process past the 2nd Coming, and that future discussions would have to be along that line.

I hope he considers 1 Cor 15. :wink:

Another line of strategy would be to try to spell out better why metaphysically (i.e. on coherent theological principle over-against alternative proposals) we should not expect the already/not-yet of salvation from sin to continue after the 2nd Coming, and so on that basis anything in the scriptures that might suggest this (such as 1 Cor 15 for example) ought to be reinterpreted otherwise somehow.

I get the impression PaulM was trying to do something like this in his article by citing the other authors rather than actually going over in detail what 1 Cor 15 says (and so why on textual grounds it couldn’t be testifying to such a process after the 2nd Coming). I don’t think such an attempt would be complete without addressing apparently countervailing data in the scriptures, but the attempt to do so at all would need a more systematic argument than citing other authors’ opinions on the topic (at best a scattershot approach to establishing the rationale–unless what’s being quoted is their own systematic rationales on the topic. And I don’t think this was happening in the article, or not enough so.)

I’m very curious as to how PaulM attempted to (hypothetically) argue in favor of universalism in chewing over Chad McIntosh’s recent argument. But I’ll be looking into that more closely myself next. :slight_smile:

#40

The blog linked in the OP is interesting, but really doesn’t make sense to me because I don’t see Hell in the age-to-come (which is “to come” from our perspective though from God’s I think is a present reality). Anyhow, I don’t see “Hell” in the age-to-come; but I do see life, judgment, and the destruction of and overcoming of all evil. Any punishment of sin in the age-to-come is not punitive or vendictive and is certainly not endless (as pictured in Hell) but is redemptive and necessary for reconciliation. Reconciliation comes through judgment. We must face the truth concerning our lives; and I trust that the fire of truth will purge us from all evil. Judgment is righteous and merciful, and meant to reconcile us with the Truth so that we may be whole. I see judgment and punishment of sin as an eternal reality, something that invades our present at different times and in different ways.

This is one reason that I do not like to say I believe in Hell in the age-to-come. If anything, the present evil age is Hell, except for it being not endless. In this present evil age humanity is consumed by evil from within and without, slaves of unrighteousness, in bondage to fear, death, and even demonic spirits. In fact, I think that the “sinning angels” that were cast down into Tartarus (Greek Hell) are the demons that plague people today. If that is so, then that scripture implies that we are currently in the sinning angels’ Tartarus - Hell on earth, Hell for them and Hell for us!

#41

Bob,
in your last response to Dual Citizen, it’s Paul not Steve :slight_smile:

But more importantly, Paul’s words were “that those reconciled to God would be punished in the age to come.” Paul’s saying there is an inconsitency with Parry’s words.

#42

Auggy, thanks for the good corrections!

#43

It’s my opinion that Parry can drop this since people who are reconciled to God are punished as well in this age. If Paul says well they’re not under condemnation, that’s because of the repentance and “reconciliation” that occured for them which is required for salvation.

Being a good Calvinist I’m sure Paul could appreciate the difficulty of God reconciling enemies to himself and they’re needing to reconcile themselves to God.

#44

Jason, I’m not able to find the original article offered up by PaulM. So I am relegated to pulling the substance of the argument out of the postings and inferring from you responses. What I’m reading in a nut shell is that PaulM argues from I Cor 15 and Col 1 that:

  1. UR works if one accepts the eschaton as a dynamic eternity where there is room for God to continue to act through the ages of the future to reconcile those lost to the divine with continuous acts of grace.
  2. However, if one interprets the eschaton as being static; then there is no room or point in time (e.g., or sequence) for God to act in reconciling the lost.
  3. PaulM contends that the bible offers no clear indication that the eschaton is dynamic; rather all descriptions offered are fixed images which would suggest that the eschaton is a post judgment static state of rest and joy for those who have believed in the gospel vs. judgment and darkness for those who have rejected the gospel.
  4. Since there is no place in a static state eternity for a postmortem reconciliation, there can be no UR.

Is this the argument PaulM is asserting? Please correct me if I’m missing something. After more than half a century of reading I still find I can get things miss-construed (e.g., myscontrewed? miskonstroughed? … wrong).

RVallimont

#45

Yes, PaulM shut down that Wordpress site some time ago. I don’t know why, but only one article remains (on free will) because that article was getting the most hits.

I didn’t archive his article, unfortunately; and I know PaulM has talked with Chad McIntosh (another friend of mine, Arminianist if I recall correctly) since then. I still haven’t gotten around to analyzing Chad’s article on accepting ‘universalism’ verses at face value but in favor of ECT, nor PaulM’s discussion with him on that.

Paul might prefer to post an updated version of his article here (which was an initial attempt at formulating the argument in the first place). Hopefully he’ll see the activity on this thread in his email and bring us up to date on it.

Having said that, and keeping in mind that I’ve slept several months since carefully considering his article, your summary seems pretty close to the gist of it. I think his wording was more like ‘the Bible nowhere teaches a continued not-yet in the age to come’. (That isn’t a quote as I don’t have his article at hand anymore. I quoted liberally from his article in my reply, but didn’t always directly “quote it”, unfortunately.)

PaulM and I both agreed that the scriptures teach eventually there will be no more ‘not-yet’ (in regard to salvation anyway), and that while from God’s eternal perspective this has already been accomplished, for practical temporal purposes it will only be brought to fulfillment in the Day of the Lord to come. He and I differed over whether the fulfillment ended at the beginning of that Day (so to speak) or not; and over what the fulfillment of that accomplishment actually involves (all sinners, or only some sinners, being brought to perfect righteousness.)

I didn’t gather that PaulM was trying to argue that the eschaton would be utterly static (with the saved never learning anything further or accomplishing anything new), if that’s what you’re asking.