The following reflections have been summarized in terms of far-reaching theological conflicts between a traditional “heaven and hell doctrine” on the one hand, and the much more positive outcome of God’s ways as taught by an “all atonement.”

Dealing with different gauges

The doctrine of hell is a vivid example of how to arrive at different views. Some defend hell in style to fire and sword. Others come to different views. The handling of Scripture is the real cause of the differences. That is why the doctrine of hell stands as an example for other topics. The doctrine of hell, on the one hand, and the all-atonement, on the other, are contrary doctrines. They would like to be mentioned here for two reasons:

  1. There are current examples of different gauges
  2. The confrontation can show how to deal with any teachings in an examining way.

How do we deal with different views?

It is in the nature of things that proponents of one direction reject the other two interpretations. As long as a healthy attitude is maintained in the process, a deeper conversation can still be cultivated. It is then always about the questions of who God is and how He acts. In the foreground is the doctrine of hell or the all atonement. Behind this, however, is an understanding of God. This is what it’s all about. It is also very interesting to hear from others why people think differently. In doing so, valuable insights can often be gained despite different points of view. Different points of view are sometimes taken for different reasons. Perhaps one has recognized something that the other side has never considered in this way.

A healthy comparison can be achieved by asking the following questions:

  • What is the reason for this?
  • What are the arguments against it?
  • What can be answered satisfactorily, what perhaps not (yet)?
  • How do we deal with it?

Since they are honest questions, it is no longer a matter of wishful thinking or defending a tradition. It is simply a matter of understanding the Bible and examining what is true about these views. This is sober, faith-promoting, and community-building.

What speaks for it first wants to be perceived. This takes courage in an environment that rejects it or when one is firmly convinced that one view or another would have no basis in the Bible.

But the reverse is also true: what speaks against it also wants to be perceived. At no point is it a question of hiding something. Only then can something be checked. The challenge is that there is actually evidence to support more than one view. One is challenged to fade in other perspectives instead of fading out, to listen instead of looking away.

If this is allowed, the pros and cons can be considered with a healthy distance. Or in other words, a clear view of the statements of a comprehensive salvation is just as necessary as the sober consideration of all the statements of judgment.

When shaking the roof beams

Typically, these questions are not simply a handful of Bible passages, but an overall understanding of many things right away. Because these questions go to the heart of biblical thought, many issues are touched upon. Dealing with it can be stressful or it can be a great enrichment. Both reactions are possible. How do we deal with it and how do we want to deal with it?

In an argument, you will soon realize that there are fundamental issues at stake, such as:

All these topics touch each other. If someone shakes the theological house of a certain stamp and challenges a long-held opinion, the dust will come off not only the walls, but perhaps right away from the roof beams, the bookcases in the living room, and the closets in the hallways. Because this is so, rash answers are probably not appropriate.

It is helpful for orientation to compare the various interpretations of important Bible passages. How does the Bible passage read in its own context? Does someone else have a better explanation in context? Also: How do other doctrinal currents interpret this text? Is the basic text also included? How are biblical passages of the opposite position interpreted? Have I perhaps overlooked something that others recognized better? (Here you can find more help)

What happens next

It is these consistent questions that have led me to All-Asonement myself. That is my clear answer. But I have the answer only for me. Even though I share what I think, this is only meant as a suggestion. Faith can only be had for oneself before God (Rom 14:22).

Comparing many exegeses, I found the best reflections in a particular corner. When I had resolved the questions about hell and all atonement that were important to me, it was clear to me that hell is a false doctrine, while the Bible actually teaches all atonement. Along with the best interpretations for “difficult” texts, I also discovered in the All Atonement the clearest focus on Christ – quite contrary to popular opinion. However, this does not mean that I have “the Bible in the bag”, nor are all the details always as clear as day. Nor were they for Paul, who wrote:

“O depth of the riches, wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are His judgments and how untraceable His ways!”
Rom 11:33

Not every detail is known here. Nevertheless, Paul speaks about such significant things as God’s judgments and about His ways. The limitations of one’s own cognition did not stop Paul from seeing the entire history of the world securely in God’s hands. So he writes in the same section afterwards:

“For from Him and through Him and to Him is the All! To Him be the glorification for the eons! Amen!”
Rom 11:36

The origin, becoming and goal of all things are mentioned here, even though details may be unknown. We don’t have to know everything to trust God. But what is written we may and should know. We should also be familiar with God’s purpose.

Trust in God

If we allow some of this trust in God to grow in an argument – even with differing views – then perhaps everyone will have won in the conversation. Faith in the Old Testament and New Testament sense is always a trust. In arguments about theologies, one can be tempted to interpret “faith” as a “believing to be true.” Faith is then detached from the original trust, from the relationship, and defined as an abstract truth to be believed. But this is no longer trust in God and it has very little to do with the biblical concept of faith.

A theological discussion must always have the “what for” in mind, and not only the “what”. It must always put first the relationship based on a call from God, so as not to find itself in a de-soul and de-spiritualized trench warfare. If we want to test a doctrine, then these aspects are also involved. It is easy to derive from this truly spiritual life, where man in his trust simply trusts Him. Confidence grows from this. Those who are strengthened in this way can confidently give due space to their neighbor, to themselves, and above all to God’s actions.

0