All posts in Theology

            As society progresses toward a stricter guideline of political correctness, the doctrine of universal salvation is becoming more appropriate in the minds of believers.  This debate about the final fate of unbelievers has been highlighted by popular culture in recent months, but underlying is the question of the extent of God’s reconciliation. We will review Gary Shultz’s The Reconciliation of All Things in Christ, as he seeks to find a purely biblical basis for Christ’s work on the cross as it relates to the reconciling of humanity. We will also seek to validate the unique use of the term “Universal Reconciliation” under the definition of Shultz’s article.

Brief Summary

            Shultz immediately seeks to counter the doctrine of Universal Salvation with what he calls Universal Reconciliation. II Corinthians 5:18-21 and Colossians 1:19-20 are analyzed as passages that clearly define reconciliation in universal terms. If the phrase ‘all things’ is to be seriously held as all-encompassing, Shultz sees the need to balance the judgment and eternal fate of unbelievers with scripture’s concept of all creation being reconciled to God through Christ.  While the popularly rejected doctrine of Universalism presents full salvation for all humanity regardless of personal responsibility, Shultz counters, presenting Christ’s work of reconciliation as segmented in unique ways to believers, non-believers and the rest of creation. Believers are reconciled in a personal way as they are “in Christ” and have placed their faith in Him.  Likewise, unbelievers are also reconciled with a different definition.  Shultz says they are reconciled “in the sense that God has postponed the full display of His judgment toward them,” (Shultz 2010, 454) sighting God’s patience toward sinners in Romans 3:25.   In the end however, they are “consigned to the lake of fire with Satan” (Shultz 2010, 456) where they are unable to commit sin in their eternal state.  Reconciliation is then a subjection to the will of God with the inability to do anything apart from his purposes (Shultz 2010, 455).  In addition, creation is also reconciled, but is not limited to the physical realm.  Shultz defines creation to include a grander spiritual scope, such as Satan, his demons, and angels.  The entire material and spiritual creation is ultimately transformed because of the full extent of the work of Jesus Christ (Rev. 21-22).

Critical Interaction

            From the outset of the article, use of the term ‘Universal Reconciliation’ is confusing, as the phrase is often used interchangeably with the Universal Salvation. Readers will momentarily be guarded based on what is implied.  Driscoll loosley uses the phrase to describe the hope that sinners will be repentant and that the whole of humanity will be saved [1]. Nevertheless, Shultz’s strength is his embrace of the phrase “all things” which is usually overemphasized or completely ignored in the Universalism debate.  The term is a broad one and should be treated as inclusive of all creation.  Neither II Corinthians 5:18-19 or Colossians 1:19-20 can be interpreted to be limited in scope.  However, Shultz is correct to balance this phrase with the realities of judgment supported elsewhere in scripture.  His comparison of objective and subjective reconciliation somewhat explains the need for personal acceptance of Christ’s work on the cross.  He rightly concludes that while the extent of reconciliation is total, a relationship with God only begins when Christ’s work is subjectively applied to one’s life (Shultz 2010, 446).

The author’s motivation is certainly to combat the evangelical notion that only believers are reconciled to God, a clear deviation from scripture in the eyes of the author, while providing boundaries for the reconciliation of the rest of creation.  The argument however, seems to rest on unbelievers being technically reconciled since God is accomplishing his purposes through their eternal punishment. Shultz concludes that those residing eternally in Hell will “vindicate God’s honor and holiness as they agree with His righteous judgment” (Shultz 2010, 458).  Proponents of Universalism will not consider this technicality a furthering of conversation they desire to have, as this type of segmentation stands in stark contrast to the “all-reconciling” love discussed by the likes of Jürgen Moltmann.  The opposing side will argue that salvific reconciliation that is dependent on a person’s faith will place ultimate power in human hands [2].  Even still, Shultz has presented a solid biblical argument for God’s will ultimately prevailing at the eschaton, a truth that neither side can dismiss.

Conclusion

            Shultz’s view of universal reconciliation provides an intelligent counter to the universalist argument when uniquely applied to believers and unbelievers.  At a minimum, the concept provides support to a conversation on how God’s glory can be achieved in both salvation and wrath.  This is not a discussion that has a nearing end.  It is one that should fuel both greater awe toward the mysterious purposes of God and greater commitment to our own evangelistic ministry of the message of this reconciliation.