Let us ask about justice and how the justice of God comes about. The question is significant against the background of the doctrine of heaven and hell, which pits God’s love against His justice: if one does not accept God’s love for salvation, it is replaced by God’s wrath. The all atonement, on the other hand, sees God’s love fulfilled in God achieving His righteousness on the cross, and this is the basis of God’s saving action. Judgments do not stand in place of the cross or the work of faith, but lead toward the cross, toward the recognition of God’s work.

The Psalm writer says:

“Righteousness and justice are the foundations of your throne.
Grace and faithfulness go before your face.”
Ps 89:15

It is a remarkable statement, for righteousness and justice are here accompanied by mercy and faithfulness. This verse of the Psalm could set us on a track to see righteousness and justice as well as God’s judgments with new eyes.

The all atonement takes the judgments of God as seriously as the statements that God saves all people. Both belong to the revelation. But the judgments are to be understood in their own context, and the impact is not to be extended beyond what Scripture says about them. Judgment and grace both lead to the goal that God has stated in the Bible: All is toward Him (Rom 11:32-36).

Righteousness and justice here go hand in hand with mercy and faithfulness. This verse of the Psalm could set us on a track to see righteousness and justice as well as God’s judgments with new eyes.

The expiration date of grace

Now this is a very different approach from that propagated by a heaven-and-hell doctrine. There, God’s grace is valid only as long as a person lives and accepts the grace. If he does not, then death is, so to speak, the expiration date of God’s grace and love, after which only punishment and judgment follow. In this, this kind of proclamation resembles what is read in the Law: choose life or choose death (Deut. 30:19). Man is challenged to live or even bring about the righteousness of God. If this does not succeed in life, the divine court should “make up” for it.

The problem here is that man can never bring about this justice. In the Letter to the Romans, Paul writes this explicitly (Rom 3:19). If it depends on me, by definition it will not succeed. Even as a believer, Paul recorded from his own everyday life: “For not that which I want do I put into practice, but that which I hate do I… For not the good which I want do I, but the evil which I do not want, this do I put into practice.” (Rom 7:15-19). This is to make it clear that our willing and doing is very limited. If I have to choose, as a believer I already often cannot implement this, but from non-believers it is demanded as an all-determining default even for things with eternal consequence.

Paul’s assessment seems much more realistic here: “For it is God who works in you: the willing as well as the working according to His good pleasure” (Phil 2:13). Again, this is a statement for the life of believers, but if already we believers should trust in God’s working, does not this insight rather apply to the whole world?

It is important and enlightening to understand what the doctrine of heaven and hell says. It says that God gives up His love and grace and the righteousness brought about by the cross if man is unwilling.

Crucial in these reflections is that the call to “believe” no longer has the original meaning of trust, but has degenerated into a “work,” a “performance.” I’m sure many people experience this quite differently, but in teaching it became the all-determining factor. The teaching says: Man himself chooses between “eternal salvation” or “eternal perdition”. Man ultimately decides his eternal destiny. But this is rather clumsy.

Faith as condition and performance?

Is faith an achievement that I have to make? This is quite a tricky reinterpretation of the term “faith,” although at first glance it seems to come from the Bible that way, too. Because it is said:

“But God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.”
Rom 3:22 (For more on this text, see the article “Is faith an effort I must make?”).

It is important and enlightening to understand what the doctrine of heaven and hell says. It says that God gives up His love and grace and the righteousness brought about by the cross if man is unwilling. Instead of His love and grace, judgment takes place again – as if Christ had not died for this person after all. What kind of God is this?

A serious misinterpretation is made here. Thus, if grace is not accepted, God sets aside His achieved justice again and “must” administer justice and punish eternally. I have heard this countless times, especially in conversations with “hell-believers”.

Unlike the psalm poet, according to the understanding of the “hell-believers” justice and grace have nothing to do with each other, but are virtually opposites. If grace ceases, then there is only judgment, which God is “forced” to do, so to speak, because of His claim to justice and His holiness.

The denial of the cross

What does all this lead to? This understanding of justice is essentially the denial of the cross of Christ. The cross is no longer the sovereign solution of God, but at best a partial solution that still needs to be “assembled” by man. It is a kind of semi-finished product to which the human being still has to contribute something to make it work.

This is not entirely wrong, of course, because faith always points to relationship, to turning, and therefore always includes all sides, but it is not entirely right either. The problem lies here: The shift of jurisdiction from God to man, with an impact for eternity as preached by a doctrine of hell, leads to no gospel. In the doctrine of hell, man is elevated to an all-determining being. In the process, the good news is lost and God is dethroned as God – because man with his will is more powerful than God with his will.

That God saves has always been the impetus of the Gospel.

That God saves has always been the impetus of the Gospel. If you leave this clarity, you leave the gospel of God’s grace. People forget that God’s justice was satisfied at Calvary. Righteousness is never achieved through our actions – certainly not God’s righteousness is achieved through them. But this is the very essence of the Gospel – that God has wrought His righteousness entirely without us. This is “accomplished.”

In the proclamation of God’s grace, only His work can be central. This was lost and man was made to be all-important.

The just court

The fact is: God’s justice has already been achieved. It no longer needs to be balanced by judgment or punishment. When we read about the judgments of God in Scripture, it is also not about “faith in Jesus” or about “righteousness of God,” but the “works” of each one are tested (cf. 1 Cor. 3:13-15; Rev. 20:12, among others). In this, God’s judgments will be just, say proponents of the All Atonement.

The righteousness of God has already been achieved. It was satisfied on Golgotha. It no longer needs to be compensated by court or penalty.

Why these critical questions are important

The heaven-and-hell doctrine leverages God out of responsibility for His creation. The doctrine “forgets” that His righteousness has already been achieved through Christ. The doctrine makes judgments an endless torment, for which people are kept alive eternally by God. The doctrine of the destruction of all unbelievers adds to this and means to free God from the shame of endless torment by destroying all unbelievers once.

To my ears, this is a perverted image of God. Perhaps such a statement is tough stuff. It is not meant disrespectfully, but tries to think through the consequences of the doctrine of annihilation and the doctrine of heaven and hell in consequence. It should be clear to everyone what we are dealing with and why the questions on this topic are important.