Where Everybody's Crazy

So at this week's Christology seminar, I have to answer the question "Just how universal is Paul's gospel?" Now of course this is a difficult question because we have to separate it from "Just how universal is our gospel?", "Just how universal do we think Paul's gospel ought to be?", "Why do we have such a problem if Paul were found to be universalist?" and so on. I thought I knew the answer: Paul was a universalist.

Then I thought Paul wasn't actually sure, or that he I've come back to the conclusion that he was a universalist. I find this convenient, of course, not because I'm a universalist myself but because I like controversy and I'm sure this is bound to generate some.

So here are my notes for the seminar.

First, a few problems. The first problem is a hermeneutical problem; you can find evidence for both universalist and limitarian positions in Paul's writings, but it depends on what you believe to determine what you consider "clear Scriptural teaching". If you're a limitarian, then the limitarian verses are "clear Scriptural teaching" and the universalist ones are debatable, and vice versa. In the light of that, we have to say that all verses are debatable. It's a bummer, but there it is. Also, coming back to the category problem, Thomas Johnson says that the question of "how can I (as an individual) be saved" is a modernist one, and won't be found in the Biblical literature anyway.

The next problem is that universalism might not mean what you think it means anyway. There's a difference between "the Gospel is effective for everyone" and "the Gospel includes Jews and non-Jews". The latter is clearly a concern of Paul, but I don't think we know - from the verses I'll outline below - whether the former was something he was addressing.

The final problem, before we launch into the fors and againsts, is the distinction between what Talbott calls "reference and predication". Basically universalism wraps up two issues; the first is who is saved (all or a select group?), and the second is whether they are saved or whether they have the opportunity to be saved. The Augustinians say all can be saved, but not all are; the Armenians say that not all can be saved, but those who can be, are; universalists says that both all can be and are saved. When we interpret Paul, we have to be clear to identify when he's talking about reference and when about predication.

Dealing with the reference question, Paul's repeated metaphor for Christ's redemptive work is the duality between Adam and Christ. This is always expressed in universal contrasts: all die, all are raised. Limitarians are placed in the unhappy position of having to say that the first "all" really means all, but the second "all" cannot be taken to mean all. But as Neal Punt, an opponent of universalism, puts it:

Romans 5:18 and its immediate context place no limitation on the universalistic thrust of the second "all men".

As for predication, Paul basically doesn't say anything about it. There is often an argument from silence on this point, and so people like Jim Packer can be found making breathtaking leaps of logic:

All these [universalist] texts are juxtaposed with texts in the documents from which they are drawn which refer specifically to the prospect of some perishing through unbelief. And unless we assume that the writers did not know their own minds, we have to conclude that they cannot in the texts quoted, really have meant to affirm universal final salvation.

So, since there are both universalist and limitarian texts in Paul, Paul must not have been a universalist. (If I am drawn towards universalism, it is because I prefer the company of people who can think clearly.)

Oh, and one more thing: Church interpretation of Paul in the tradition, rather than in modern scholarship. There isn't any. There is no clear teaching on the means or scope of salvation in the nine councils. Not a thing. Yes, that's an argument from silence, I know, but the fact that various Fathers took different positions and nobody sortedthem out once and for all suggests that this was a "live" issue in the apostolic age and no such an open-and-shut case as we've made it these days.

Now, the Bible! Verses with universalist readings:

• 1 Tim 2:4 - salvation of all desired
• 1 Tim 2:6 - Christ was ransom for all
• 1 Tim 4:10 - Christ was savior of all, especially (and therefore not limited to) those who believe
• 1 Cor 15:22 - all made alive in Christ
• 1 Cor 15:27 - all subject to him
• Phil 2:10-11 - all will worship him
• Col 1:20 - all reconciled in Christ
• Romans 5 (cf 1 John 2:2) - all justified and made righteous
• 2 Cor 5:19 - all reconciled
• Romans 11:32 - all receive mercy
• Eph 1:9-10 - all gathered up in him

Verses with limitarian readings:

• 2 Th 1:9
• 2 Th 2:10

Weight of evidence, huh? Generally limitarians don't advance any Pauline texts besides these two, but constrain themselves to arguing about the meaning of the universalist texts - whether all really means all. This is telling.

Church fathers for universalism: Clement, ("We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer") Origen, (allegedly declared heretical at EC5 but recent scholarship shows that may well have been a lateraddition) Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Athanasius. Against: Augustine, Gregory Nazianus, later Latin fathers.

Some final factors for consideration:

• Another of Paul's major themes is that of the completeness of Christ's work and victory. How can it be complete if it is limited?
• Some of the texts refer to being "in Christ", which obviously excludes those who do not choose him, right? But in 1 Co 1:30, being "in Christ" is the work of God, not the choice of the individual.
• Similarly "by faith" does not clearly refer to the choice of the individual. Actually Romans 3:3 says that lack of faith is no obstruction to grace.
• In case you still think individual choice is important in Paul's writings, remember that Paul himself was compelled, rather than chose, to follow Christ.