Very minimally, Universalism or Inclusivism asserts that God will save all people whether they believe in Christ or not. However, Universalism severely debilitates God, which I will now strive to elaborate.
For the purpose of differentiating the god of the Universalists from the living Triune God, I have named the god of the Universalists as ‘unigod.’
Who is this unigod, who supposedly saves all people? What is he worth?
Worth Nothing – A Cruel, Unjust God, Unmindful of Sins
Man, if he is to love and worship God, should be aware of God’s attributes or nature. Minimally, love and justice are significant communicable attributes. (Attributes that are perfect in God but also found in humans to a degree are ‘Communicable Attributes.’)
A god who loves all, even those who hate and abuse him, seems to be a loving God. But a careful examination of this love reveals cruelty.
Those who hate God say, “I do not want to live with God.” But if God forces those who hate HIM to be with HIM unto eternity, this certainly smacks of slavery. Holding people against their will is slavery. None accept, agree, or admire slavery. This is cruelty in its glory.
But this is apparently what unigod does to people. Unigod forces people to be with him unto eternity. So, unigod is not loving, but cruel.
Consider God’s attribute of justice. Justice is a disposition to do that which is morally right. Presence of ‘right’ requires a ‘wrong;’ this is analogous to rust requiring a metal.
Since evil is rampant in the world, common man expects the authorities to punish evil. But unigod, as an apparent ultimate authority, does not punish evil, for he allows even a horrendously evil person to enter into heaven.
We would be extremely saddened and frustrated if we are victims of injustice. An authority who fails to provide justice is unjust or evil. By allowing a horrendously evil person to inherit the greatest good (heaven), the unigod reveals his unjust and evil attributes.
Significantly, unigod, who supposedly saves all people, is unmindful of sins. Sin is an assault on the Holy God, who is the maximally great being. But unigod, by virtue of apparently forgiving unrepentant people of their sins, does not consider sins to be an assault on HIS holiness.
In other words, holiness, love and justice are not the attributes of unigod.
Unworthy of Worship
Worship is man’s response to God’s worthiness. God should be worshipped for HE alone is worthy of our worship (adoration, thanksgiving, prayers etc.). God deserves this response from all people.
From the perspective of Historic Christianity, since God so loved the world, HE gave HIS only Son, so that those who believe in the Son of God will receive eternal life (John 3: 16). Salvation of mankind (those who believe in Christ) is an outcome of God’s love for man. Since salvation is God first act (through HIS love to redeem man from his sin), the believer loves God, and worships HIM always. The living God reveals HIS worth to HIS people by HIS blessed presence, and offers hope that HE, through HIS second coming, will fulfill all HIS promises (e.g. eliminate evil forever). Thus man worships this Almighty, loving, gracious and a compassionate God.
In contrast how does unigod reveal his worthiness to his people? All that he supposedly does is to save all men (universal salvation). If this is his only or primary revelatory act of worthiness, then unigod has placed himself in a precariously quicksand situation.
Think about this. We DO NOT need to worship unigod. What do we gain or lose by not worshipping unigod? Nothing!
Will we lose our salvation if we do not worship unigod? No, we will not lose our salvation.
If those who do not worship unigod will go to heaven, then why should man waste his time and energy in worshipping this unigod, when he can indulge in carnal hedonistic lifestyle?
The depraved mind of Universalists posits salvation for everyone – all and sundry – even those who do not worship unigod. In other words, unigod, who supposedly saves all people, declares himself to be unworthy of worship.
Worthy of Abuse
If you are unaware of Richard Dawkins’ intense abuse (an act of evil) of the living God, please read the endnote.1 (Proponents of Historic Christianity believe that Prof. Richard Dawkins, the bulldog of Atheism, will not go to heaven, if he does not repent of his sins and accept Christ the Lord as his Savior. The God of Historic Christianity is a holy God and in HIM is no sin, so sin cannot coexist with God.)
Thanks to Dawkins, we can now turn the tables.
Please brace yourself for an unmitigated and an indecent assault on unigod. The unigod is an evil, corrupt, depraved, putrid, brainless blockhead; he is a nonsensical dummy, foolish idiot, insanely ignoramus dolt, a nincompoop, and a senseless monkey. Anyone can mock and thoroughly disrespect unigod.2
Despite these abuses on unigod, Universalists claim that unigod will still save me!
Unworthy of Emulation
Just as how parents are emulated by children, God should be emulated by HIS disciples.
Universalists claim that all people will be saved despite their good or horrendous nature. If their god unconditionally accepts abuses, should not the Universalists unconditionally accept abuse from others?
If the Universalists fail to accept horrendous abuses upon themselves or their families and friends, they intuitively expose their opposition to or the limitation of their own god!
Historic Christianity asserts Christlikeness in the believers of Christ (Romans 8: 29 et al.). This is not a mere fact from the realm of the spiritual, but from the realm of the physical as well. Christians are called to bear fruit and much fruit (John 15).
The contentment and joy of a parent is directly proportional to the physical and behavioral resemblance of their child. If a child resembles the goodness of the parent, the parent will be greatly joyful and contented.
But in the case of Universalism, there is no resemblance of unigod in the lives of its disciples. The children of the alleged unigod exist in reality, but when the child is to resemble the parent, the children of unigod do not resemble their god, for their god cannot be resembled.
Conclusion
Universalism is a medievally mystical belief, bordering on insanity. The alleged god who admits all people into heaven is imaginary, and resides only in the depraved minds of the Universalists.
God cannot be unholy, evil, unjust, and unmindful of sins. Only an evil and an unjust being will be unmindful of sins. Moreover, a god who accepts and agrees with abuse of any intensity is a god without perfection and holiness. A being with such deplorable attributes is not God. In fact, God, as a maximally great being, cannot possess such appalling attributes.
Even man’s intrinsic dignity and self-worth prevents him from agreeing and accepting to abuses of any form or size. So a god who is awfully comfortable with abuses to the extent of supporting and welcoming evil is an evil god that resides only in the fantasies of certain minds.
Therefore, we reasonably claim that there is no unigod, and that universalism is nothing but a grand illusion.
Endnotes:
1 Dawkins’ view of God in his book ‘God Delusion:’ “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
2 This indecent attack on unigod is reasonable, since unigod is existent only in the dreams and imagination of Universalists.
This blog is the revised version of the original article http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2013/10/the-god-who-admits-all-people-to-heaven.html
I don’t think that you understand universalism. Did you ever studied it, because you have the strangest claims. God will judge the unbelievers, they will not go to heaven.
They will not share the kingdom, they shall be in God at the end of time 1 kor 15 says so, that is after death is no longer there, it is the last enemy.
Kol 1:20 says that all the enemies will be changed into friends. How can you deny this? And no, vs 23 deals about the believers NOW, it has nothing to do with the ungodly. On the contrary, even the angels, the sons of god (=elohim, or beni elohim) who are wicked (ps 89) are reconciled!
Universalism has many varieties. Your notion is probably one of the varieties of Universalism.
According to your position, you maintain that the wicked would be judged but will live eternally in God. Where is the Scriptural basis for this precise claim? Neither 1 Cor 15 not Col 1:20 state that the wicked would live in God eternally.
What then is the purpose of judgment of the wicked if it is not for condemnation? In other words, if God is going to keep the wicked with HIM unto eternity, then why judge them at all? Isn’t judgment a wasted activity from within your perspective? Why would God, a perfect being, perform a meaningless judgment?
When we endeavor to do systematic theology, we ought to consider and reconcile all the passages of the Bible relevant to the topic we are discussing. How would you interpret and reconcile passages such as Matt 25:46, John 5:28-29, Rom 9:22, Matt 8:12, 25:41, 25:24 etc.
Apologies for the delayed response. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Hallo Richard,
I should think that we’d better discuss one thing at the time. So I will respond to your first paragraph.
To live eternally means, in my opinion, that you live in the kingdom of our Lord Jesus. (Lu 18:30). The wicked stay dead then, so no they don’t live then. In 1 Cor 15 states that because of Adam everyone dies, but also that everyone will become alive again. And Col 1 says that every enemy will be reconciled. There can be no doubt on that, I think.
But you have to reconcile these texts with the ones that state that the wicked will be in the lake of fire forever. If forever means that it never ends, then I think that the Bible contradicts itself, that cannot be. So aion(ios) or olam cannot mean neverending. It has to be a period with an end.
Brother,
How would you interpret this verse that Jesus said especially with reference to “those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.”?
John 5: 28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 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.
to be condemned will mean that they will be judged and they will not enter the kingdom of God during the 1000 years and during the new heaven and new earth. They will be dead. the dead will stand before the throne, so are risen, but they have no life yet. During the next two ages they stay dead. After those ages they get the new life, dead has lost its vivtims, Jesus has won, every man that died because of Adam and was slave of the devil and the death will be found, will get life and will be free. Jesus will give his kingdom back to the Father, and God will be all in all.
1. Your exegesis is faulty because you reconcile your text with allied texts and not the contradicting texts. I am referring to your statement “But you have to reconcile these texts with the ones that state that the wicked will be in the lake of fire forever. If forever means that it never ends, then I think that the Bible contradicts itself, that cannot be. So aion(ios) or olam cannot mean neverending. It has to be a period with an end.”
2. John 5: 28 does not say what you said, “to be condemned will mean that they will be judged and they will not enter the kingdom of God during the 1000 years and during the new heaven and new earth.” John 5: 28 implies condemnation once and for all.
3. You have trivialized the judgment of God. According to you, God is worthy of abuse. What do you have to say about that?
1. I certainly take into account for the contradicting texts. That is why I explained my view of the word everlasting. On the contrary, I think that you don’t take into account the explicit meaning of Col 1:20: ALL will be reconciled.
2. once and for all must be incorrect, because Col 1;20 says that everything will be reconciled, and 1 Cor 15/Rom 3&5 state that everyone will rise from the dead and will get life. So sure as it is that a man shall die because Adam sinned and died, so will every man rise and get life because Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead and got the new life.
It is because of texts of Plato that the scolars conclude that aionios means everlasting, so neverending, but the Bible doesnot teach that.
3. It is your conclusion that I trivialized the judgment, but in my opinion you exaggerate the judgment. The word krisis (Greek) means correction, not revenge.
ad 2. to be condemned means that you have no eternal (aionios) life, that is the life of the next era/age/aion. And the next era is the kingdom that lasts 1000 years.
Hallo brother in Christ Rajkumar, can you explain your view on Col 1:15-23 what is meant by panta = all? and what means to be reconciled?
1. Why does the Apostle Paul ask his readers to NOT live in sin if ALL will be reconciled (and he threatens them with the wrath of God Colossians 3:6)…because if ALL will be reconciled then why should people not sin? I am referring to Colossians chapters 2 & 3. How do you reconcile these verses?
2. Are you saying that if a person abuses God and disbelieves in HIM, this person will still not be punished or will merely get annihilated?
Hallo Rajkumar, I don’t understand why you ask me those questions. Of course sin will be judged, and the sinners will be punished. And when you believe in Him you will get the benefits.
And when you believe in Him , you love Him, why would you sin? it’s the same question as in Rom 6. Such a question makes me think that you don’t understand universalism or christianism at all? Love is the answer.
My statement about universalism is that at the end of time, when death is conquered definitely, everybody and everything is reconciled, and God may be all in all.
Please do not jump the gun and judge my understanding, Eldert Van Schagen. I am trying to understand your position.
So, how would sin be punished?
Nice sentence, I’m dutch and I didnot know ‘jump the gun’. I hope that not my choice of words hurt you, I didnot mean that. I like to discuss the issue with somebody because most people reject the idea without study.
What I meant was, that when a man becomes a christian he is saved. Most men take that forever, you can’t get lost again. So some would say, let us sin, because we are already saved. That would be strange, but Paul deals with that same issue in Rom6. Shall we sin because mercy will grow. NO!!! You know the answer. So that’s why a person who knows the mercy and grace of our Lord Jesus will not sin easily. And the ones that are not christians in this life will not have the life of the next era. That is the first punishment, not to celebrate the life with Jesus Christ. But I think that they will see what they have done in their lives and they will be ashamed. They will die the second death (is that good English?). After time they will be reconciled and they will glorify God and our Lord (Phil 2)
Please clarify this…
This is your statement, “And the ones that are not christians in this life will not have the life of the next era. That is the first punishment, not to celebrate the life with Jesus Christ. But I think that they will see what they have done in their lives and they will be ashamed. ”
You said that the unbelievers “will not have life” but at the same time you said that “they will see what they have done in their lives and they will be ashamed.” Is this not a contradiction, for you said that “they will not have life” but at the same time you are saying that “they will see….” if they will see, then they will have life, is it not???
After second death, you said that the unbelievers would be reconciled and they will glorify God, which means that the unbelievers of Christ will come to life. Am I correct in my understanding of your position?
Thank you for discussing.
This is your statement, “And the ones that are not christians in this life will not have the life of the next era. That is the first punishment, not to celebrate the life with Jesus Christ. But I think that they will see what they have done in their lives and they will be ashamed. ”
You said that the unbelievers “will not have life” but at the same time you said that “they will see what they have done in their lives and they will be ashamed.” Is this not a contradiction, for you said that “they will not have life” but at the same time you are saying that “they will see….” if they will see, then they will have life, is it not???
In Rev 20; 12 -> the dead stand before the throne and they are judged. In which state they are, I don’t know. Are they aware of what happens then? Because in Eccl 9:5 the dead know nothing. Therefore I assume that they are aware of the judgment, but I am not sure.
If they come out of the death, hades and would have life then the normal explanation would be true, second death is the end and endless. But death gives the dead, but it is not said that they receive life. In 1 Cor 15:22 you can read that every man shall be made alive. So that can happen after the second death, because death does not exist anymore?
After second death, you said that the unbelievers would be reconciled and they will glorify God, which means that the unbelievers of Christ will come to life. Am I correct in my understanding of your position?
Yes, quite correct, I would say.
Let us discuss the more significant point here….If the unbelievers would be reconciled to God, then we come back to the square one of our discussion. Please read my article yet again and tell me why anyone should WORSHIP and OBEY the God who saves even those who disbelieves in HIM?
I ask this question to you since even THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, even THOSE WHO DO NOT WORSHIP, and even THOSE WHO ABUSE THIS GOD during their life on earth, will be saved in the end.
Isn’t worship, obedience, emulation along with evangelism, discipleship etc rendered meaningless under the worldview of Universalism? If so, then why does the Bible teach people to worship, obey, emulate God? Why does the Bible ask us to disciple / evangelize?
Let us discuss the more significant point here….If the unbelievers would be reconciled to God, then we come back to the square one of our discussion. Please read my article yet again and tell me why anyone should WORSHIP and OBEY the God who saves even those who disbelieves in HIM?
Love is the answer. Do you worship and obey God because you are afraid. Or because you love Him because of what He is and did/does?
I ask this question to you since even THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, even THOSE WHO DO NOT WORSHIP, and even THOSE WHO ABUSE THIS GOD during their life on earth, will be saved in the end.
But that’s not all. Those who believe NOW have great advantages, don’t you think? And the judgment is not just something, isn’t it.
I think that your questions are strange: the way you think, I could assume that you would rather live by yourself and after your desires. I could think that you find it a sacrifice to believe.
Isn’t worship, obedience, emulation along with evangelism, discipleship etc rendered meaningless under the worldview of Universalism? If so, then why does the Bible teach people to worship, obey, emulate God? Why does the Bible ask us to disciple / evangelize?
NO, why do you think that way? Is it because you don’t comprehend the idea? We are greatful to know what Jesus has done, so we tell people about it. We tell the good news. We tell them that God makes you happy, He gives meaning to your life. That you are precious that He died for you aso.
But we don’t threaten people that if they don’t accept Christ they will be punished forever. That God is Love but nevertheless he will put you in eternal flames.
I suggested earlier that you would discuss Col 1:19-20 All will be reconciled. Can you explain your view on ‘all’and ‘reconciliation’?
1. the point that I am trying to make is that a person NEED NOT LOVE GOD, but he/she will be saved.
2. what great advantages? even if a person abuses God, your worldview says that he will be saved. In fact, the advantages are there for the person who does not love God.
3. According to your worldview, Jesus was a great cosmic joke and God the Father a great cosmic sadist for having put Christ into suffering and cross. God could have merely NOT put Christ through all that suffering but still saved everyone.
4. All…reconciled? All who believe in Christ would be reconciled…
Keep on…Nice chatting
1. the point that I am trying to make is that a person NEED NOT LOVE GOD, but he/she will be saved.
But they will be judged, won’t they?
2. what great advantages? even if a person abuses God, your worldview says that he will be saved. In fact, the advantages are there for the person who does not love God.
No, they will not reign during the next age, they won’t know Jesus as we do. We are member of His body.
3. According to your worldview, Jesus was a great cosmic joke and God the Father a great cosmic sadist for having put Christ into suffering and cross. God could have merely NOT put Christ through all that suffering but still saved everyone.
How can you say such things? God gave His son to save all mankind, that’s no joke. If He had not done everybody would die and would never rise again.
On the contrary: If Jesus did not save everybody then most people would suffer death, only a small fraction would be saved. Then Adam would have a greater impact than Jesus. Then 1 Cor 15 is a lie. Also Col 1 is a lie, not everybody/ every enemie would be reconciled.
Then God who loves everybody and wants to save everybody would not be able to do so, then His goal would not be achieved and so in fact He would be a sinner.
4. All…reconciled? All who believe in Christ would be reconciled…
That cannot be concluded because ‘ta panta’ is created vs 16 and everything exists/consists because of Him. And all will be reconciled, i.e. changed from enemie to a non-enemie. That includes the angels. I will cite:
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/egt/colossians-1.html
Colossians 1:20. To this verse Ephesians 1:10; Ephesians 2:16, are partially parallel. It supplies the basis for the Son’s pre-eminence (Colossians 1:18) in His reconciling death.— διʼ αὐτοῦ: through the Son.—ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν. The choice of ἀποκατ. instead of the more usual καταλλ. is for the sake of strengthening the idea, and by insisting on the completeness of the reconciliation accomplished to exclude all thought that reconciliation by angels is needed to supplement that made by Christ. The reconciliation implies previous estrangement. It is the universal sweep of this passage that makes it at once fascinating and mysterious. Numerous expedients have been devised by exegetes to avoid the plain meaning of the words. The natural sense is that this reconciliation embraces the whole universe, and affects both things in heaven and things on the earth, and that peace is made between them and God (or Christ). The point which creates difficulty is the assertion that angels were thus reconciled. Some have evaded this by interpreting τὰ πάντα of the things in heaven below the angels and those on earth below man. It might be possible to parallel the latter reconciliation with Paul’s prophecy of the deliverance of animate and inanimate nature (excluding man) from the bondage of corruption (Romans 8:19-23). But the two are not identical, for one is and the other is not eschatological, and reconciliation is not deliverance from the bondage of corruption. And this helps us little to explain what the reconciliation of all things in heaven is. Nor is any such limitation legitimate; on the contrary, it is precisely in the opposite direction that any limitation would have to be made; for in its full sense reconciliation can only be of beings endowed with moral and spiritual nature. In Colossians 1:16-17 angelic powers are explicitly included in τὰπάντα. It is plain that εἰς αὐτὸν excludes the view that a reconciliation of angels and men is intended. This is so even if with Chrysostom and others (including apparently Abbott) we make τὰ ἐπὶ τ. γῆς andτὰ ἐν τ. οὐραν. depend on εἰρηνοπ. For this still leaves unexplained ἀποκ. τ. πάντα εἰς αὐτόν, which makes the reference to angels undeniable. Bengel’s note, “Certum est angelos, Dei amicos, fuisse inimicos hominum Deo infensorum,” may be perfectly true. But it is irrelevant here, for only by forcing the words can εἰρηνοπ … οὐραν. be regarded as other than epexegetical of the preceding clause, and in particular τ. ἐπὶ τ. γῆς and τὰ ἐν τ. οὐραν. as a resolution of τ. πάντα. Abbott’s suggestion that τὰἐν. τ. οὐραν. may be inhabitants of other worlds may be true, though for Paul the thought is far-fetched, but does nothing towards excluding the angels. He urges that ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς is not necessarily equivalent to “in heaven”. But not only did Jewish angelology place the angels in the heavens, but Paul did so too, and has done so only just before in this passage, defining τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐραν. as the various orders of angels (Colossians 1:16). Further, not only is this exclusion of the angels from the scope of reconciliation inconsistent with the terms of the passage, it omits a very important point in Paul’s polemic. To the angels the false teachers probably ascribed the function of procuring the reconciliation of men with God. (Cf. Enoch xv. 2, “And go, say to the watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: you should intercede for men, and not men for you”.) How effective is Paul’s reply that these angels needed reconciliation themselves! Assuming, then, that angels are included among those reconciled, and that this is also referred to in the words “having made peace through the blood of His cross,” the question arises, What did Paul mean by this? Meyer says that in consequence of the fall of the evil angels the angelic order as a whole was affected by the hostile relation of God to them, and the original relation will be fully restored when the evil angels are finally cast into hell. But apart from the speculative nature of this explanation, and the injustice it imputes to God, the reference is certainly not eschatological. Godet lays stress on εἰ αὐτὸν, and suggests that the reconciliation is not to God but with reference to God. He thinks that the passing over of sins by God (Romans 3:25) might cause the angels, who had been mediators in the giving of the law, difficulties as to the Divine righteousness. This was met and removed by the cross, which revealed God’s attitude to sin and reconciled them to His government. We do not know that the angels needed this vindication, which, of course, it was a function of Christ’s death to give, though it is possible (Ephesians 3:10, 1 Peter 1:12). But this interpretation seems to be excluded by the explanation of reconciliation as making peace. And εἰς αὐτὸν was probably chosen instead of αὐτῷ on account of εἰςαὐτὸν (Colossians 1:16), and because it was stronger and expressed the thought of God or Christ as the goal. The explanation that the angels were confirmed, and thus made unable to fall, is altogether inadequate. Harless, Oltramare and others admit a reconciliation of men and angels to God, but without asserting that τὰ ἐν τ. οὐρ. needed reconciliation. Wherever it was needed Christ effected it. But Paul’s division of τὰ π. into two categories marked by εἴτε … εἴτε shows that the statement has reference not simply to these classes taken together as a whole, but to each taken singly. Alford, in his suggestive note, after saying that such a reconciliation as that between man and God is not to be thought of, since Christ did not take on Him the seed of angels or pay any propitiatory penalty in the root of their nature, gives as his interpretation “all creation subsists in Christ: all creation therefore is affected by His act of propitiation: sinful creation is, in the strictest sense, reconciled from being at enmity: sinless creation, ever at a distance from His unapproachable purity, is lifted into nearer participation and higher glorification of Him, and is thusreconciled, though not in the strictest, yet in a very intelligible and allowable sense”. Unfortunately this cannot be accepted, for the strict is the only allowable sense. But it is on the right lines, and indicates the direction in which a solution must be sought. This, as several recent scholars have urged (Kl(9), Gess, Everling and others), is through taking account of the Biblical and Jewish doctrine of angels. That the angels are divided into the sharply separated classes of sinless and demoniacal is a view on which this passage remains inexplicable. Nor is it the Old Testament or the Jewish doctrine, or, it may be added, the doctrine of Paul. Perhaps we need not, with Gess, think of an intermediate class, or, with Ritschl, of the angels of the Law. To Jewish thought angels stood in the closest relations with men, and were regarded as sharing a moral responsibility for their acts. The angelic princes of earthly kingdoms in Daniel, and the angels of the Churches in the Apocalypse, are Biblical examples of this. A large number of Pauline passages harmonise with the view that the angelic world needed a reconciliation. The detailed proof of this cannot be given here; it belongs to the discussion of the angelology of the Epistle. (See Introd., section ii.) But if the angels needed it, how could it be effected through the blood of the cross? It is not enough to answer with Haupt that the reconciliation of men affected the angels who were closely united with them. A direct effect seems to be intended, and the difficulty is that stated by Holtzmann, that with the flesh all capacity is absent from the angels of Paul, to share in the saving effects of the death of God’s Son, which was made possible through the assumption of the flesh, and in which sin in the flesh is condemned. In answer to it these considerations may be urged. The Son is Head of the angels, as He is Head of humanity; therefore His acts had an effect on them independently of their effect on men. His death must not be narrowly conceived as physical only, as the destruction of the material flesh. It was the destruction of the sinful principle; and therefore is independent in its effects of the possession of material bodies by those whom it saves. And this cannot be set aside by the fact that Paul uses such a physical term as blood of the cross, for the death of Christ was surely more to him than a mere physical incident. So far, then, as the angel world was affected by sin, it needed reconciliation, and received it in the atoning and sin-destroying death of Christ its Head. That in this reconciliation evil angels are not included is clear from the fact that Paul does not regard it as having had effect on them corresponding to that on men. Lueken points out that Paul adds “through Him” to the words “through the blood of His cross,” and refers the latter to the reconciliation of men and the former to that of angels, so that they are simply said to be reconciled through Christ. But the διʼ αὐτοῦ is an emphatic resumption of διʼ αὐτοῦ at the beginning of the verse.— εἰςαὐτόν. It is uncertain whether this should be referred to God or Christ. The former is possible, for αὐτόςmay be reflexive, and reconciliation is usually to God (so Ephesians 2:16, also 2 Corinthians 5:18-20,Romans 5:10). We should also have expected διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτόν if Christ had been meant. On the other hand, the reference to Christ is favoured by the fact that elsewhere in this passage αὐτόςalways refers to Christ, and by the parallel with Colossians 1:16, ἐν αὐτῷ … διʼ αὐτοῦ … εἰς αὐτόν. Decision is difficult; it is perhaps safest to let the Pauline usage determine the reference, and interpret “unto Himself”.— εἰρηνοποιήσας. In Ephesians great emphasis is laid on the peace between Jew and Gentile, established by the cross, an emphasis quite to be expected where the unity of the Church is the leading thought; but not to be found here, for the peace is obviously between God on the one side and men and angels on the other; besides which the thought would have no relevance in this connexion.— διὰτ. αἵματος τ. σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ. The combination of the two terms is perhaps for the sake of insisting on the historical fact of the reconciling death against the tendency to seek peace with God through angelic mediators.— τὰ ἐπὶ τ. γῆς, probably governed by ἀποκατ., rather than εἰρηνοπ., since it and the companion phrase seem to be epexegetical of τὰ πάντα.
And another way of thinking although it is the way a man thinks: If everything is made by God and everything is out of Him, how can it bet hat something will be lost forever? Then God will lose something? God will be all in all, is not true then, is it?
If God looks for the lost, he will fin dit, won’t He? He would fail, wouldn’t He?
If Jesus has overwon death, and there will be still dead in the end, is death really the last enemie that has to admit that He won? He would still have conquered people.
I think that God will reveal Himself when judgment day is there, and everybody will acknowledge His love and work and they will praise Him ( Phil 2:11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ isLord, to the glory of God the Father.)
Keep on…Nice chatting
I agree. Thanks. And may God bless you.
Brother, thanks for sharing your thoughts…let me deal with the most significant aspect of our discussion since we seem to be going in circles…
Here is a part of our previous discussion,
“After second death, you said that the unbelievers would be reconciled and they will glorify God, which means that the unbelievers of Christ will come to life. Am I correct in my understanding of your position?
Yes, quite correct, I would say.”
This is what you said in your latest comment,
“1. the point that I am trying to make is that a person NEED NOT LOVE GOD, but he/she will be saved.
But they will be judged, won’t they?”
Here you meant that unbelievers of Christ would live in reconciliation with God and that they would glorify God. According to your interpretation of the Bible, this is after God’s judgement of the unbelievers. Once again, what is the purpose of God’s judgment if ultimately all unbelievers would live with God unto eternity?