Different doctrines in conflict

Is God coming to the end with this world? The doctrine of All Reconciliation answers this question positively and says: “Yes, God comes to the end with this world and with all people”. However, many Christians have grown up with a very different image. It was explained to them that although God “wants” to save, unfortunately He “can’t” unless people “choose for Jesus.” This statement comes from the doctrine of heaven and hell, according to which humankind will one day be divided into two groups:

1. The people who “accepted Jesus
2. The people who “did not accept Jesus”.

Those who advocate the doctrine of hell say: there should be a twofold outcome of the history of the world and salvation. A small part of humanity will be saved. They will be blissfully “happy” in the hereafter or in another place for all eternity, even though the vast majority of humanity elsewhere is “tormented” without ceasing. According to this doctrine, the vast majority of humanity ends up in hell. There, these unfortunates experience an eternal remoteness from God, are kept alive eternally by God so that He can torment them endlessly, and they no longer have any chance of salvation.

The first group will receive an eternal life laughing merrily, while the other group will be damned eternally. Anyone who does not recognize this as absurd has perhaps internalized this view for too long. The final monstrous task of chastisement is sometimes outsourced (“outsourcing”) to another being called the devil or diabolos so that God doesn’t seem quite so bad.

This view of heaven and hell is problematic for many reasons.

• It is theologically problematic,
• it has nothing to do with the bible and
• it is certainly not good news, as people like to portray it.

The marketing of the proponents of hell (“Jesus loves you”) does not correspond to the reality of the teaching. Anyone who has seen the hell doctrine from the inside will no longer be able to lie down quietly in bed because of the many threatening depictions. If what the teachings say is true, then things look bleak for this world. This is exactly what is taught.

The consequences of this doctrine are also problematic. Those who take the statements of the doctrine of heaven and hell seriously not infrequently get into great inner conflicts, because this doctrine cannot be reconciled with the image of an all-powerful and loving God. There is a tension that could not be more painful. The proclaimed love of God is diametrically opposed to the doctrine of heaven and hell. The image of God of a heaven and hell doctrine is radically different from the image of God of the so-called all-reconciliation, according to which God reaches the goal with all people.

So does the doctrine of hell apply, that is, an “eternal damnation,” or does the Bible speak of a comprehensive positive outcome, an “all atonement”? What is “biblically” defensible and where are the sticking points? That’s too many questions to answer all at once. Here it is about a few approaches in thinking and at the end there are a few links, where you can open up further topics for yourself.

What is meant by “biblical”?

For many, the word “biblical” has a special meaning. It is important to understand what is meant by it and what you want to express yourself. The first explanation is often that something is “in the Bible.” This gives a statement a special weight, because the Bible is God’s word and therefore “true”.

However, this view of the meaning of the word “biblical” is somewhat romanticized. The intention seems good and I also support it. However, the reality is not so rosy. What is sold as “biblical” is often just a hodgepodge of ideologies and teachings that don’t necessarily have anything to do with the Bible. Biblical is often only what is taught in one’s own community. Recognizing that is important.

Soberly considered, “biblical” is an unbiblical word. We do not find it in the Bible. To speak of “biblical” is thus descriptive and subject to interpretation. If one would like to bring some order into this tangle of thoughts, one would have to clarify what one wants to call “biblical” oneself.

Here’s a suggestion:

• The word “biblical” is meant to denote what is plainly stated in the Bible.
• The word “biblical” is not meant to denote what is interpreted into the Bible that is nowhere to be found.

Examples:

• Nowhere does the Bible speak of “eternal damnation.” This is an “unbiblical expression.”
• Quite clearly, the Bible speaks of the “reconciliation of the universe” (Col 1:20). Accordingly, this is a “biblical expression.”

Of course, this view is simplified. Reading the Bible correctly requires a little more care. Because: Every word of the Bible receives the primary meaning only in its own context. We cannot quote Bible verses at will. What is written in the Bible is true, but it is first true only in its own context.

Everything is for us, but not everything speaks of us.

Some read the Bible undifferentiated in the sense of “everything speaks of me”. In doing so, one disregards the context. However, a conflict arises from this. I cannot and must not misuse biblical passages as I see fit. In this area of tension, we must learn to distinguish between the “meaning of the statement in the original context” and the “transferred application of what we have learned in everyday life”. Here it is true that everything is for us, but not everything speaks of us. It is imperative that we return to humility and better differentiation when it comes to classifying something as “biblical” or rejecting it as “unbiblical.”

Is the all-atonement mentioned in the Bible?

Yes, the all-atonement (or all-reconciliation) is directly mentioned in the New Testament. In Colossians 1:18-20 we read:

“He [the Son of His love. Col 1:13] is the head of the body, the called-out church, of which He is the beginning as the firstborn from the dead, so that in everything He might become first.

Since the entire consummation has its pleasure in dwelling in Him and reconciling the universe to Himself (by making peace through the blood of His cross) through Him, whether that on earth or that in the heavens.”
Col 1:18-20

So the Bible speaks of God reconciling the universe to Himself through Christ, God making peace with the universe through the blood of the cross. This reconciliation of all things encompasses everything, all of creation, heaven and earth (cf. Gen 1:1).

This is neither difficult nor unclear in context. The context is comprehensive. Christ, as the Son of God’s love (Col 1:13), is the image of the invisible God and the firstborn before any creation (Col 1:14-15). In Him is created the universe, it is created through Him and to Him (Col 1:16), and He is before all, and the universe exists together in Him. Everything is inclusive here – just as it is in the next verses. It is a through argument of the apostle, in which there is nothing wrong.

Now we move on. God reconciles all things to Himself by making peace through the blood of the cross. That is the goal: a mutually reconciled universe. God is the “reconciler of the universe”. He is the only “all-reconciler,” if you will. The reconciliation is achieved by Him making peace through the blood of the cross. This is what Paul writes in Colossians 1:20. This is more Christocentric than any variation of the doctrine of hell ever was. In the larger passage, Paul spans from the origin of all things to the current course of events to the mutual reconciliation with God, the course of this world.

So is it “biblical” to speak of an all-atonement? Yes, it is. Of course, this contradicts the doctrine of heaven and hell. The contradiction is therefore not with the Bible, but with this teaching. The doctrine of hell rejects something that is directly mentioned in the Bible, but teaches much that is not mentioned anywhere. For some people it may come as a surprise that something like all atonement is written in the Bible – in many communities such texts are hushed up and therefore many people do not know them.

Of course, some “interpret” this quite differently, but a sober inventory of biblical statements must take this passage into account. It is irrelevant whether one signs this or rejects it. This passage belongs to the Bible and we should take it seriously. Not blocking out what is written is a first step toward clarification. If one approached the doctrine of heaven and hell with the same clarification of one’s own doctrines, one would have to conclude …

• That “eternal damnation” is nowhere in the Bible
• that there is no word for “hell” in the basic texts (Hebrew/Greek)
• that some other assumptions about the Bible are nowhere to be found.

How do you test whether a teaching is “true”?

This is an important question. How do you go about testing a teaching, for example, on the “all-atonement” or even the “heaven and hell” teaching? I have already shown here that one cannot simply ignore the “reconciliation of the universe”, because there is an unmistakable Bible passage on this. So we no longer have to examine whether there is an all-sufficiency statement in the Bible, but we have to clarify how this statement relates to other statements. We need to weigh pros and cons to different views. The same applies, of course, to the biblical passages where “hell” is mentioned in some translations. These passages of the Bible should also be looked at.

The first principle is not to hide anything that is in the Bible.

There are pros and cons to almost every teaching. Some passages in the Bible say this, other passages seem to say something else. There are reasons for this. Some of the biblical indications are stations along the way, while other biblical passages actually define the final destination. Some Bible passages address one group of people, while other Bible passages speak of other groups. We must learn to appreciate and value these qualities of the biblical accounts. It’s not that it’s “difficult”, it’s what we have to do naturally with all texts and all stories. Only in the case of the Bible is it often disregarded, not least by certain doctrines that have been imposed as “biblical” and superimposed on the Bible. They prevent a more neutral discussion.

In order for us to return biblical passages to their own value, we must read them in their own context. Each Bible passage is in the story of a development. The church of today is built up from all nations, whereas in the Gospels Jesus came with a specific commission exclusively for the Jewish people (Matt. 15:24; Rom. 15:8). Recognizing these differences means that we take biblical reporting seriously.

Those who try to trace the Bible can only go forward scripture by scripture. Not everything is clear at once. Perhaps one realizes that the Bible does speak of an “all atonement,” but one wonders how then this is compatible with the other biblical passages about judgment and hell? These are important questions, but there is no shortcut here.

Some people will hear about the All Atonement, breathe a sigh of relief and say, “I have always known that, because God is above all.” Some people don’t want to know all the details. They embrace the newfound knowledge and are glad that they now discover Bible passages that speak of the salvation of all people (1 Timothy 4:9-11), the justification of all people (Romans 5:18), the making alive of all people (1 Corinthians 15:22), and the like.

Other people, however, have to deal properly with all the arguments for and against. That was my way and many others feel the same way. My point was not to simply get rid of an inconvenient doctrine, but to actually understand whether this doctrine of hell was taught in the Bible – or not. If you want to test, you need a longer way, because you have to deal with pros and cons. Only then can one discover that the Bible does not speak of hell, but very much of judgment. You can learn how to solve questions step by step.

The second principle is: consider text in context and according to the basic text

On this website, therefore, there are many posts that address the arguments pro and con of all-reconciliation. Difficult Bible passages are not dodged, but more and more Bible passages are illuminated from context and according to the basic text. In my opinion, this is the only way to really clarify questions. Those who want to delve further into these questions will therefore find topic pages with many articles on kernbeisser.ch. There you have an entry point with many suggestions.

Maybe you don’t agree with these statements at all. You may have immediately thought of some biblical passages that contradict what I said. That’s a good reaction. Bible passages want to be taken seriously. But: There is probably already an answer to these Bible passages on this website. More than 250 contributions summarize the pros and cons of the prevailing interpretations of many biblical texts. It can be good aids to look more closely at different views. To get started: In the menu navigation you will find the entry “Topics”. Among them are listed various broad topics, all with several contributions.