A Refutation of “THREE BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST UNIVERSALISM”

In his article “Three Biblical Arguments Against Universalism” (https://rethinkinghell.com/2017/11/18/three-biblical-arguments-against-universalism/), Peter Grice – founder of the “Evangelical Conditionalism” website “Rethinking Hell” – attempts to demonstrate that “universalism” (i.e., the doctrinal position that all sinners will be saved by God through the redemptive work of Christ) is incompatible with Scripture. In accord with the traditional “conditionalist” position, Grice believes that some (perhaps most) sinners will never be saved and granted immortality, but will instead be permanently blotted out of existence. In this article, I will be demonstrating that Mr. Grice’s arguments pose no threat to the scriptural view that all mankind shall ultimately be vivified in Christ (and thus saved).

Before I begin responding to what Mr. Grice wrote in his article (excerpts from which will appear in red), it should be noted that I am in complete agreement with Mr. Grice with regard to his understanding of human mortality and the nature of death. We both believe that humans are not inherently immortal beings, and that Scripture teaches that humans must be resurrected if they are to enjoy a living, conscious existence after death. In fact, I have posted several articles on my blog in defense of this position, and against the more commonly-held view that human beings have (or are) “immortal souls” that consciously exist in a disembodied state after death. So my disagreement with Mr. Grice does not concern his understanding of death, the mortal nature of humans or the necessity of resurrection; rather, it concerns his view that only some humans will ultimately be granted immortality by God.

I’m also in agreement with Mr. Grice concerning the fact that, during the future ages of Christ’s reign, those who are wicked and unbelieving will not be blessed with immortality and enjoy the salvation that is promised believers. We’re also in agreement concerning the fact that the judgment referred to in Revelation as “the second death” will involve certain people dying a second time, and then remaining dead for the entirety of the future period during which Christ and the saints shall be reigning on the new earth. My disagreement with Mr. Grice does not, therefore, concern the fact that there is future judgment, or that the wicked will perish/be destroyed (and thus miss out on the blessings that will be enjoyed by the saints during the “oncoming ages” referred to by Paul in Eph. 2:7). Rather, my disagreement concerns Mr. Grice’s view that the destruction/perishing of the wicked and unbelieving will be endless in duration, and that God has no intention of ultimately saving those who are to be “cast into the lake of fire.”

Now, after some introductory remarks, we read the following in Mr. Grice’s article:

Personal eschatology—the study of the final fate of human beings—should be embedded within cosmic eschatology, the study of the final state of God’s created order. God is redeeming the cosmos, and human beings within it (see Rom 8:18-25). Universalists and conditionalists both agree that God will redeem the cosmos as a whole. But universalists also claim that God will eventually redeem every human being that will have ever lived, while our claim as conditionalists is that God’s work of “new creation” purposefully excludes some human beings. Despite knowing enough about the immortal God and realizing that they ultimately deserve death, they still reject him (Rom 1:18-23; 32). They disobey the gospel (1 Pet 4:17; 2 Thess 1:8; Rom 10:16), and so fail to respond obediently in repentance and faith to the knowledge of God and his offer of salvation (Acts 6:7; Rom 1:5; 16:26). They love sin rather than goodness, themselves rather than God, and are “disqualified regarding the faith” (John 3:20; 2 Tim 3:2-8).

Although Mr. Grice claims that “God is redeeming the cosmos, and human beings within it” and that “God will redeem the cosmos as a whole,” he denies that the redemption of the cosmos “as a whole” will involve the redemption of every individual in need of redemption. Instead, Mr. Grice believes that God “purposefully excludes” (and permanently so) those who “disobey the gospel” and who “fail to respond obediently in repentance and faith to the knowledge of God and his offer of salvation.” This view, however, is at odds with the very passage that Mr. Grice references in support of his claim that God “is redeeming the cosmos, and human beings with in.” Here is how Romans 8:18-25 reads in the Concordant Literal New Testament (http://www.concordant.org/version/read-concordant-new-testament-online/):

For I am reckoning that the sufferings of the current era do not deserve the glory about to be revealed for us. For the premonition of the creation is awaiting the unveiling of the sons of God. For to vanity was the creation subjected, not voluntarily, but because of Him Who subjects it, in expectation that the creation itself, also, shall be freed from the slavery of corruption into the glorious freedom of the children of God. For we are aware that the entire creation is groaning and travailing together until now. Yet not only so, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruit of the spirit, we ourselves also, are groaning in ourselves, awaiting the sonship, the deliverance of our body. For to expectation were we saved. Now expectation, being observed, is not expectation, for what anyone is observing, why is he expecting it also? Now, if we are expecting what we are not observing, we are awaiting it with endurance.

Notice Paul’s use of the expressions “the creation” and “the entire creation.” Insofar as humans are created beings (no less so than every other creature), it would make no sense to believe that creation doesn’t include any human beings. But if human beings are just as much a part of the creation as any other creature created by God, then it follows that “the entire creation” to which Paul referred in this passage includes all human beings (including all who have died, or who will die, in an unrepentant and unbelieving state). And this means that, at some future time, all human beings ”shall be freed from the slavery of corruption into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” Moreover, the fact that “the premonition of the creation is awaiting the unveiling of the sons of God” suggests that the “unveiling of the sons of God” can be understood as the pledge of the deliverance of the rest of creation.

This understanding is supported by Paul’s statement that the sons of God (i.e., believers) “have the firstfruit of the spirit.” It is because believers “have the firstfruit of the spirit” that we will be freed from the slavery of corruption (through “the deliverance of our body”) before the rest of the creation (Rom. 8:9-11; 2 Cor. 5:4-5; Eph. 1:14). However, in Scripture, the term “firstfruit” refers to the set-apart first portion of a larger harvest, and is the guarantee that the rest of the harvest is coming. Thus, the term “firstfruit” always implies a larger, future harvest of which the firstfruit is the pledge. And since believers have “the firstfruit of the spirit,” the implication is that those who don’t have the spirit that is presently possessed by believers will receive it at a later time, and thereby constitute the future spiritual “harvest” that is implied by the expression “firstfruit of the spirit.”

Thus, what Paul wrote in Romans 8:18-25 actually contradicts Mr. Grice’s position, and supports the view that God will, in fact, “eventually redeem every human being that will have ever lived” (instead of permanently excluding some human beings, as Mr. Grice believes will be the case).

Mr. Grice went on to write the following:

Despite the difference in penultimate history between the universalist and conditionalist camps, both scenarios ultimately envision a state of comprehensive reconciliation of the cosmos and of redeemed humanity; God’s completed work of creation, untainted by any evil and triumphant over it.

The annihilation of those whom God was either unable or unwilling to save would in no way result in “a state of comprehensive reconciliation of the cosmos and of redeemed humanity.” There is nothing “comprehensive” about a limited, partial number of humans being reconciled to God, or only a segment of humanity being saved from sin and death. Nor would an outcome according to which God is either unable or unwilling to bring all of his human creatures to completion (by subjecting and reconciling them to himself) constitute a “completed work of creation.” Such an outcome would, instead, constitute an eternally incomplete work of creation. And rather than being “untainted by any evil and triumphant over it,” such a “work of creation” would be endlessly and tragically marred by the permanent victory of sin and death over every being that God was either unable or unwilling to save.

Mr. Grice summarizes his first argument against “universalism” as follows:

Argument from the defeat of God’s last remaining enemy in 1 Corinthians 15:26

This argument states that after all of God’s enemies are defeated with the defeat of the last enemy, death, leading to God becoming “all in all” over a redeemed creation, no enemies can still exist as such—including human “enemies of the cross” (Phil 3:18)—nor can there be any post-defeat defeat of death in their case anyway. Universalism is ruled out because the Bible links the timing and mode of this defeat of death to the immortalizing resurrection of believers.

As Mr. Grice makes clear in what follows, this first argument depends entirely on the premise that the abolishment of death referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:26 will take place when believers are resurrected/vivified in Christ (as referred to in 1 Cor. 15:51-55):

According to 1 Corinthians 15:42-55, the believer’s resurrection, when “the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality,” is the moment when death itself is defeated, that is, “swallowed up in victory.”

This foundational premise in Mr. Grice’s argument is flawed, however. To demonstrate Mr. Grice’s error concerning when death will be abolished, let’s first consider what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:20-22: 

“Yet now Christ has been roused from among the dead, the Firstfruit of those who are reposing. For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead. For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified.”

As I think Mr. Grice would agree, being vivified in Christ means far more than “merely” being resurrected. Christ is “the Firstfruit of those who are reposing,” but he was not the first man to be restored to life after being dead for a period of time. However, all previous resurrections (such as that of Lazarus, or Jairus’ daughter) involved being restored to a mortal existence, and did not place the person resurrected beyond the reach of death. Everyone previously resurrected eventually died again. This was not the kind of resurrection that Christ underwent. Rather, the resurrection that Christ underwent involved his being introduced into an immortal, incorruptible state that’s beyond the reach of death. Thus, the resurrection that Paul said comes “through a Man” – and of which Christ is “the Firstfruit” – should be understood as a resurrection to incorruption and immortality. And this means that being “vivified in Christ” involves being introduced into the same incorruptible, deathless state into which Christ was raised by God (and which, as is evident from 1 Cor. 15:54-55, will involve “putting on incorruption/immortality”).

That being vivified in Christ means to be given the same kind of life that Christ has is further confirmed from 1 Cor. 15:42-44, where Paul described the kind of body that those resurrected will have:

”Thus also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is roused in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is roused in glory. It is sown in infirmity; it is roused in power. It is sown a soulish body; it is roused a spiritual body.”

Notice the words, “thus also is the resurrection of the dead.” No one who was resurrected before Christ received the kind of body that Paul had in view in these verses. We can therefore conclude that the kind of resurrection of which Paul was writing throughout this chapter is the kind of resurrection that only Christ has, so far, undergone, and which will involve people being roused with an incorruptible, glorious, powerful and spiritual body. But the kind of resurrection to which Paul was referring in these verses is not going to be limited to believers. Here, again, is 1 Cor. 15:22:

“For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified.”

Most Christians – whether they’re “conditionalists” or “traditionalists” – seem to believe that it was Paul’s intent to express the following idea in this verse: Just as all who are “in Adam” are dying, so all who are “in Christ” shall be vivified (or “made alive”). According to this interpretation, Paul was merely revealing the destiny of all who are presently “in Christ” (i.e., believers), and was not revealing the destiny of all who, in Adam, are dying. However, this interpretation fails to take into account what Paul actually wrote.

The parallelism of 1 Cor. 15:22 clearly indicates that the same individuals who are included within the first “all” (i.e., all who, in Adam, are dying) are included within the second “all.” That is, the individuals referred to by the two uses of the word “all” are identical, and the scope of the first “all” thus determines the scope of the second “all.” And since the first “all” is comprised of all descendants of Adam (all of whom can be referred to as dying “in Adam”), it necessarily follows that all mankind shall be vivified “in Christ.” One cannot, therefore, appeal to the fact that all are not presently “in Christ” in order to support the view that all won’t be vivified; according to what Paul wrote, the vivification of all who are dying in Adam is a future certainty. All who are dying in Adam shall be vivified, and this future vivification shall occur “in Christ.” Being vivified in Christ is by no means restricted to the relatively small number of humans who are later referred to as “those who are Christ’s in his presence” (i.e., believers). Rather, it embraces the same individuals who, in 1 Tim. 2:4, we’re told God wills to save (i.e., “all mankind”).

Thus, despite the efforts by some to deny the obvious meaning of what Paul was affirming in this verse, the parallelism of 1 Cor. 15:22 clearly indicates that the same individuals who are included within the first “all” (i.e., all who, in Adam, are dying) are included within the second “all.” That is, both instances of the word “all” in Paul’s statement denote everyone who is dying as a result of Adam’s sin. And because all mankind will ultimately be vivified in Christ, it follows that all mankind will ultimately receive the same “power of an indissoluble life” which, in Heb. 7:16, is said to be possessed by Christ. And this must include those over whom the “second death” will be having jurisdiction during the final eon of Christ’s reign (for these will be the only people who will still be dead when the consummation arrives). Moreover, since death is the penalty of which sin makes us deserving (Rom. 1:32; 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:56), it follows that, when all humanity has been vivified in Christ, they will have been justified and thus saved from their sins (which, of course, is what Christ died to accomplish).

After revealing that all who are dying in Adam shall be vivified in Christ, Paul went on to write the following in 1 Cor. 15:23-28:

Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence; thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power. For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy is being abolished: death. For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him. Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.

The word “until” in v. 25 indicates that the subjection of all is the goal of Christ’s reign. When the goal of Christ’s reign is reached, there will no longer be any need for Christ to continue reigning, and Christ will thus give up the kingdom to his God and Father. Since Christ’s reign is only “until” a certain point (at which point he will give up the kingdom to his God and Father), it follows that the duration of time for which Christ is going to be reigning is not endless or “eternal”; rather, it will end when Christ’s reign ends, and he gives up the kingdom to his God and Father.

Notice, also, that “the consummation” will be occurring “whenever [Christ] may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father.” And this event will be occurring “whenever [Christ] should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power,” and “all His enemies” are placed “under His feet.” In other words, Christ’s giving up the kingdom to his God and Father will coincide with the nullifying of “all sovereignty and all authority and power” (hence the second use of the term “whenever”). And since death is the “last enemy” (v. 26), it logically follows that “the consummation” will coincide with the abolishment of death. That is, the consummation will occur when death, the last enemy, is abolished. Thus, the sequence of events that we find being revealed in this passage is as follows:

1. Christ, the Firstfruit, is vivified (this event occurred nearly 2,000 years ago).

2. Those who are Christ’s in His presence (i.e., believers) are vivified (this is the next event to occur).

3. The consummation occurs, when death – the last enemy – is abolished (this is the last event to occur during the eons of Christ’s reign).

But according to this revealed sequence of events, the vivification of “those who are Christ’s in His presence” will be occurring before death is abolished, and before all are subjected to Christ. It is therefore logically impossible for the vivification of believers (“those who are Christ’s in His presence”) to constitute the abolishing of death. Again, the abolishing of death, the last enemy, will coincide with “the consummation,” and the consummation is going to take place sometime after believers have been vivified (as is indicated by the words, “thereafter the consummation”). And since death is “the last enemy,” it necessarily follows that there will be no other enemies in existence when death is abolished.[1] And anyone who will be dead just before death is abolished – i.e., those who had to undergo the second death – cannot remain dead when death is abolished (for otherwise it wouldn’t be the case that death was abolished). They’ll be vivified in Christ, in accord with what we read in 1 Cor. 15:22.

At this point it would be worth responding to a possible objection that Mr. Grice and other conditionalists could attempt to bring against what has been argued above. A commonly-held view among conditionalists (and indeed among most Christians) is that what we read in Rev. 21:1-4 refers to the time after God has become “All in all.” In these verses we read the following:

And I perceived a new heaven and a new earth, for the former heaven and the former earth pass away, and the sea is no more. And I perceived the holy city, new Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I hear a loud voice out of the throne saying, “Lo! the tabernacle of God is with mankind, and He will be tabernacling with them, and they will be His peoples, and God Himself will be with them. And He will be brushing away every tear from their eyes. And death will be no more, nor mourning, nor clamor, nor misery; they will be no more, for the former things passed away.”

Since the future time that’s in view in this passage will coincide with the result of the “second death” judgment referred to in Rev. 20:14-15 (cf. 21:8), it’s believed that the second death will therefore be “eternal” in duration (for the words, “death will be no more” clearly don’t have reference to the second death). However, the words “death will be no more” are not an absolute statement concerning the status of death during the final eon of Christ’s reign. Rather, these words refer exclusively to the experience of those who will be living on the new earth (for no one on the new earth will be dying). However, the very fact that those who will have to undergo the “second death” will still be dead during the time when the state of affairs described in Rev. 21:2-4 will be experienced by those on the new earth means that death will not abolished during this time. And as long as death has dominion over any of the sinners whom Christ came into the world to save (and for whom he died and gave himself a “correspondent Ransom”), death will remain an enemy that needs to be abolished.

Moreover, we know that the state of affairs described in Rev. 21:2-4 (see also verses 5-8) will be taking place during the final eon of Christ’s reign. For according to what we later read in Rev. 22:1-5, both Christ and the saints shall be reigning during this time. Not only do we read of Christ’s “throne” in these verses, but we’re told that the saints “shall be reigning for the eons of the eons.” Obviously, if the saints are reigning during this time, Christ will be reigning as well (for the reign of the saints coincides with, and will not continue beyond, the reign of Christ). Thus, the time during which those who are to be cast into the lake of fire (and thus “injured by the second death”) will remain dead will be during the final eon of the reign of Christ and the saints. And since this state of affairs will be during the final eon of Christ’s reign, it will necessarily be prior to the time when Christ delivers up the kingdom to his God and Father so that God may be All in all. And since death is the “last enemy” (and is going to be abolished at the end of Christ’s reign), it follows that all who are going to be cast into the lake of fire and “injured by the second death” will be vivified in Christ. For the death resulting from this judgment will, during the final eon of Christ’s reign, be the only instance of death that will remain and need to be abolished.

But since the abolishing of death at the consummation will be occurring sometime after believers have been vivified in Christ, how are we to understand Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 15:51-55? In these verses we read the following:

Lo! a secret to you am I telling! We all, indeed, shall not be put to repose, yet we all shall be changed, in an instant, in the twinkle of an eye, at the last trump. For He will be trumpeting, and the dead will be roused incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality.

Now, whenever this corruptible should be putting on incorruption and this mortal should be putting on immortality, then shall come to pass the word which is written, Swallowed up was Death by Victory. Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting?

According to Paul, the “word that is written” shall “come to pass” (ginomai, to come to be, or to occur) “whenever” an individual is vivified. That Paul is speaking with regard to individuals here is evident from the words “this corruptible” and “this mortal”; Paul evidently had his own corruptible, mortal self in mind when these words were written. Moreover, although Paul likely had Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 in mind when he referred to “the word which is written,” Paul wasn't talking about the fulfillment of what we read in these verses. Had Paul intended to express the idea of fulfillment, he would’ve used the Greek word pleroo (which is elsewhere translated “fulfilled” or “filled up” in connection with certain verses of Scripture; see, for example, Matthew 2:23; 4:12-16; 13:14-15; 27:6-10; Luke 24:44; John 13:18; 17:12; 19:36; Acts 1:16; 3:18; 13:27; James 2:23). Instead of being “fulfilled,” the “word which is written” will “come to pass” any time (“whenever”) a deceased or mortal person (or a group of such persons) is vivified.

It is at “the last trump” that the deceased saints in the body of Christ shall be roused incorruptible and the still-living saints changed into immortal beings. At this time, death will be “swallowed up by victory” for us. For unbelievers, however, the “word which is written” will “come to pass” at the end of Christ’s reign (i.e., at “the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power.”). And when this word comes to pass at the consummation, the word will then be “fulfilled.” For – as has been demonstrated – it is at this future time that death, the last enemy, shall be abolished (and death can only be abolished as the “last enemy” when all who are dead or dying have been vivified in Christ, and can thus no longer die). Thus, that which Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 15:51-55 is perfectly consistent with the fact that the abolishing of death is taking place progressively, as different “classes” of people are vivified.

Mr. Grice concludes his first argument against universalism as follows:

The fact that death is utterly defeated at this point means that it is not subsequently defeated gradually, as unbelievers—who were already resurrected but not made immortal in a victory over death—progressively confess Christ. On universalism, they still remain in mortal corruption, just as they are now. Moreover, since all enemies are destroyed by the time Jesus hands cosmic rule over “all things” to the Father, to have been among the “enemies of the cross” (Phil 3:18) is to have already been destroyed.

Therefore, the mode and timing of the defeat of God’s last remaining enemy in 1 Corinthians 15:26, and the commensurate absence of any enemy in a fully reconciled creation, rules out universalism.

However, as has been demonstrated above, the fulfillment of 1 Cor. 15:26 (i.e., subjection of all to Christ and the abolishment of death, the last enemy) will not occur when death is “swallowed up in victory” for believers. Christ will continue to reign over the kingdom of God long after this event has taken place, and death will continue to exist as an enemy with regard to many of those for whom Christ died and gave himself a ransom. Although the vivification of “those who are Christ’s in his presence” is the next “phase” in the abolishing of death (just as Christ’s own resurrection was the first phase), it is not the event through which the last enemy is abolished.

Mr. Grice twice references Phil. 3:18 in support of his view that some will never be vivified in Christ. In this verse (and the verse that follows) we read the following:

“…for many are walking, of whom I often told you, yet now am lamenting also as I tell it, who are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose consummation is destruction, whose god is their bowels, and whose glory is in their shame, who to the terrestrial are disposed.”

According to Mr. Grice’s view, the “destruction” that is said to be the “consummation” of the enemies of the cross of Christ referred to in v. 19 will be endless (or “eternal”) in duration. However, Paul did not describe it as such, so there’s no reason to believe that the destruction of these enemies will be endless. Moreover, if Paul was referring to these enemies being destroyed at Christ’s return (as is in view in 2 Thess. 1:9), then we know that their destroyed state will end approximately 1,000 years later (i.e., when they’re resurrected at the great white throne to be judged according to their works, in accord with what we read in Rev. 20:11-15; cf. v. 5). And if Paul was referring to their being destroyed by being cast into the lake of fire, then we know that this destruction will end when all are vivified in Christ (and death is thus abolished) at the end of Christ’s reign. Either way, Paul had in mind a destruction that pertains to a period of time that is prior to the end of Christ’s reign, and not to the time after Christ has delivered up the kingdom to God (and God has become “All in all”).

Moreover, just a few verses after stating that the consummation of these enemies of the cross of Christ will be “destruction,” Paul went on to refer to the subjection of all to Christ. In Phil. 3:19-21 we read the following:

For our realm is inherent in the heavens, out of which we are awaiting a Saviour also, the Lord, Jesus Christ, Who will transfigure the body of our humiliation, to conform it to the body of His glory, in accord with the operation which enables Him even to subject all to Himself.

There is no good reason to exclude the “enemies of the cross of Christ” from the “all” whom Christ will subject to himself. None can deny that the enemies to whom Paul was referring have just as much of a need of being subjected to Christ as any other sinners (and none should deny that Christ is able to subject them to himself). We can therefore conclude that these enemies of the cross of Christ shall eventually be subjected to Christ. Moreover, notice that, in the above passage, we’re told that the “operation” which enables Christ to subject all to Himself is “in accord with” the operation by which believers will be vivified. This indicates that the final act of subjecting all who have not yet been subjected to Christ is going to occur by means of the same vivifying power through which Christ shall transfigure the mortal/corruptible body of the believer and conform it to Christ’s own glorious body. And this, in turn, means that the abolishing of death (through the vivification of all) and the final subjection of all to Christ will occur at the same time.

That the subjection of all to Christ will include all who were once enemies (and will take place prior to the abolishment of death) is confirmed from 1 Cor. 15:25-28.

For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy is being abolished: death. For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him. Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.

Notice that the “all” that will be subjected to Christ when he becomes subjected to God will be the same “all” in which God will be “All.” Consider the following argument:

1. The “all” in whom God is going to be “All” will include all who will be subjected to Christ when he delivers up the kingdom to his God and Father.

2. The “all” who will be subjected to Christ when he delivers up the kingdom to his God and Father will include those who died as “enemies of the cross of Christ.”

3. The “all” in whom God is going to be “All” will include all who died as “enemies of the cross of Christ.”

Moreover, we know that being subjected to Christ will involve becoming a subject of the kingdom that he’ll be giving up to God, for the same term translated “subjected” in v. 28 is used in reference to both the “all” who are to be subjected to Christ and to Christ himself. Christ (who, of course, has never been an “enemy of God”!) will be subjected to his God and Father when he gives up the kingdom to God, and thereby becomes a subject of this kingdom. When the kingdom is given up to God (in accord with what we read in v. 24), the Father alone will reign over the then-universal kingdom, and all other intelligent, moral beings – including Christ himself – will be his subjects. We can therefore conclude that all who are going to be subjected to Christ (which is all human beings) are going to be subjected by becoming subjects of the kingdom that Christ is going to be delivering up to God after he has subjected all to himself. Moreover, if it were true that some human enemies are going to be permanently destroyed (and thus remain permanently dead), this would permanently prevent death from ever being abolished. For death can only be abolished through the vivification of all who are dead or dying.

Mr. Grice’s next argument against “universalism” is summarized as follows:

Argument from the rationale for the limited delay of Judgment Day in 2 Peter 3:9

This argument states that since the rationale given in 2 Peter 3:9 is that God is being patient by delaying the day of judgment, “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance,” this delay expires when judgment day occurs, along with the related opportunity for repentance, thus ruling out universalism.

As I’ve noted elsewhere, 2 Peter 3:9 is not revealing God’s will concerning the salvation of all mankind.  Thus, what we read in this verse neither affirms nor denies the truth of the salvation of all. What Peter wrote here concerning God’s “not intending any to perish” applies only to those whom God has chosen for “entrance into the eonian kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:11, CLNT), and to whom God will be mercifully granting repentance before the coming indignation of the “day of the Lord” commences. And as Mr. Grice correctly points out, this verse implies that some people will, in fact, “perish” (and thus fail to enter into the “eonian kingdom” referred to earlier). For just a few verses earlier, Peter had referred to “the day of judging and destruction of irreverent men” (2 Pet. 3:7; cf. 2:1-3, 9-10). However, we are nowhere told in Scripture that the judgment to which Peter was referring here will involve the endless or “eternal” destruction of anyone.

Instead of having to do with anyone’s “eternal destiny,” the destruction to which Peter was referring is a state of affairs that will be confined to the eons of Christ’s future reign. It will not, in other words, continue beyond what Paul referred to as “the consummation” (when the last enemy, death, is abolished and all are vivified in Christ). And since the time during which the “irreverent men” referred to by Peter will remain destroyed cannot extend beyond the end of Christ’s reign (when death is abolished and God becomes “All in all”), it follows that they will not remain destroyed forever. Thus, the fact that certain men will “perish” and be destroyed when the day of the Lord arrives is in no way contrary to the truth that these men will ultimately be saved as a result of Christ’s redemptive work. For those who will perish during the day of the Lord are among the sinners whom Christ came into the world to save, and part of the “all” for whom he gave himself “a correspondent Ransom” (in accord with what we read in 1 Tim. 2:6). Their vivification in Christ at the consummation is, therefore, just as certain as their destruction during the day of the Lord.

Mr. Grice begins his third argument against “universalism” as follows:

Argument from the “removal” of what cannot “remain” in Hebrews 12:27

This argument states that a crisis of judgment between the present age and the coming age results, according to Hebrews 12:27, in the “removal” of everything that does not belong to the eternal “kingdom that cannot be shaken,” “in order that” everything that does belong “may remain.” Among human beings, only believers belong to the unshakable kingdom; hence, all others are excluded from the age to come, and universalism is ruled out.

Hebrews 12:27 falls within the passage of Hebrews 12:18-29, which draws to a climax an extended discussion that had been building at least since Hebrews 9. We are told there that Jesus appeared “at the end of the ages” to purify and sanctify his people, securing for them an “eternal redemption” for “the promised eternal inheritance” (vv. 26, 12, 15).

Mr. Grice believes that the writer of the letter to the Hebrews had in mind an “eternal” state of affairs when he wrote concerning the destiny of believers. From this Mr. Grice infers that the fate of those who will be excluded from the destiny that is promised to believers – i.e., those who will fail to receive “the promised eternal inheritance” – will also be “eternal” in duration.

Although Mr. Grice’s last argument heavily depends on the word “eternal,” the Greek word translated “eternal” in whatever Bible he’s quoting from does not, in fact, denote endless duration or refer to “eternity.” The word that was used by the inspired writer to describe the “redemption” and “inheritance” that we find referred to in Heb. 9:12 and 15 is the adjective aiónios. This word is the adjectival form of the Greek noun aión. But what does aión mean? Answer: This word is consistently used in the Greek Scriptures to denote a relatively long period of time of unspecified duration (i.e., an “age” or “eon”). For example, in Hebrews 9:26 we read of “the end of the ages” (or “the conclusion of the eons”). The word translated “ages” (or “eons”) in this verse is the plural form of the noun aión.

As the adjectival form of aión, the word aionios should be understood to mean “lasting for one or more ages/eons.” For example, the Perseus Greek Word Study Tool defines aiónios as “lasting for an age” (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ai)w%2Fnios&la=greek). Thus, aiónios refers to an indefinitely long period of time that is either past, present or future (and which thus pertains to one or more “ages” or “eons”). For example, in 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2, Paul used the expression “pro chronon aionion” to refer to the time when God promised “life eonian” to members of the body of Christ, and gave us grace in Christ Jesus. In this expression, the word “pro” means “before,” the word “chronon” means “times,” and the word aionion means “eonian” (i.e., that which lasts for, or pertains to, one or more eons). In accord with the meaning of these words, the expression “pro chronon aionion” is translated in the CLNT as “before times eonian.” In the English Standard Version we read, “before the ages began” (which is significant, since the word aiónios is usually translated “eternal” in this version).

According to either translation, however, it’s evident that the duration of time to which the word aiónios was used by Paul to refer in these verses cannot be understood as stretching back endlessly into the past. Instead, the expression “pro chronon aionion” refers to the time before the beginning of the ages, or eons, that we find referred to elsewhere (and of which we’re told God is the King in 1 Tim. 1:17). And just as it’s evident from these verses that the word aiónios does not refer to a span of time stretching back endlessly into the past, so it’s evident from Romans 16:25-26 that the word doesn’t refer to a span of time stretching endlessly into the future. Here is how these verses are translated in the English Standard Version:

“Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations…”

The Greek expression translated as “for long ages” in the ESV is “chronois aióniois” (with “chronois” meaning “times” and “aióniois” meaning “eonian” or “age-lasting”). Although the ESV normally translates the word aiónios as “eternal,” the translator(s) of this verse evidently realized that it wouldn’t make any sense to translate aiónios as “eternal” here (for if the “long ages” for which the “mystery” was “kept secret” were eternal in duration, then the “mystery” would’ve never been “disclosed”). In the CLNT, the expression “chronois aióniois” is more accurately translated as “times eonian.” But the point that needs to be emphasized here is that, just as aiónios can’t be understood to mean “without beginning” in 2 Tim. 1:9 and Titus 1:2, so it can’t be understood to mean “without end” in Rom. 16:25. And Paul’s use of aiónios in this verse – as well as in 2 Tim. 1:9 and Titus 1:2 – should inform our understanding of what the word means elsewhere (e.g., in Hebrews 9).

Moreover, I think Mr. Grice would agree that the future period of time to which the allotment or “inheritance” referred to in Heb. 9:15 belongs will not extend beyond the period of time that Paul had in mind in Ephesians 2:4-7. In these verses we read the following:

“…yet God, being rich in mercy, because of His vast love with which He loves us (we also being dead to the offenses and the lusts), vivifies us together in Christ (in grace are you saved!) and rouses us together and seats us together among the celestials, in Christ Jesus, that, in the oncoming eons, He should be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.”[2]

The “eons” or “ages” that Paul was referring to in v. 7 are the future eons of Christ’s reign. Concerning these eons, we read the following in Luke 1:32-33 (CLNT):

“And the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.”

The Greek expression translated “for the eons” in this verse is eis tous aiónas (with the last term being the plural form of the noun aión). Although most Bibles use the term “forever” to translate this expression, the expression eis tous aiónas does not denote an endless duration of time. How do we know this? Answer: Because the duration of time referred to by the words “eis tous aiónas” in Luke 1:33 (and by aiónios elsewhere) is the duration of time for which Christ shall be reigning in the future. And according to what is revealed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, Christ is not going to be reigning for an endless duration of time. Since Christ’s reign is only “until” a certain point (at which point he will give up the kingdom to his God and Father), it follows that the duration of time for which Christ is going to be reigning “over the house of Jacob” (i.e., “eis tous aiónas” or “for the eons”) is not endless or “eternal”; rather, it will end when Christ’s reign ends, and he gives up the kingdom to his God and Father. And this means that the exclusion of unbelievers from the kingdom of God during the time of Christ’s reign does not pertain to their “eternal destiny.”

Mr. Grice goes on to write the following:

[Believers] belong to an unshakeable kingdom, the heavenly kingdom, so will pass through the judgment crisis unscathed. What does not belong will suffer “removal . . . in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken ...” (Heb 12:27-28).

The purpose and timing of this removal, therefore, rules out the subsequent existence of those who do not belong to the eternal kingdom, thus also ruling out universalism.

Contrary to Mr. Grice’s assertion, the purpose and timing of the removal of what “cannot be shaken” does not, in fact, rule out “the subsequent existence” of those who will not be receiving the unshakable kingdom referred to in v. 28. For the blessing of enjoying an eonian allotment in this kingdom during the future eons of Christ’s reign is not a blessing that pertains to “eternity,” and the fate of those who won’t be entering this kingdom at the time of the judgment that’s described in Hebrews 12 will not involve being permanently erased from existence. Their exclusion from the kingdom of God (which, for the most part, will involve being dead/lifeless) will be limited to the future eons of Christ’s reign. However, after Christ has subjected all to himself and abolished death, all will then be subjects of the kingdom that Christ will be delivering up to the Father so that God may be “All in all.”

Before concluding his article, Mr. Grice provides his readers with one last argument as a “bonus” (because, apparently, Mr. Grice believes that his readers just can’t get enough of his defense of the view that death will permanently have dominion over some human beings for whom Christ died, and that God either can’t or won’t save all mankind):

Bonus: Argument from theophanic infliction of “eternal destruction” in 2 Thessalonians 1:9

There is another argument against universalism that could be simply expressed, but which deserves a more thorough treatment. Indeed, I have already written about it, and would love for you to consider reading this article through, as it presents an important argument for conditionalism, that is simultaneously an argument against other views. Briefly, there is every indication in the context of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 that we are meant to think of “eternal destruction” (which everybody agrees relates to final punishment) as something to occur in the same mode as old testament theophanies (appearances of God). On the day of judgment, Jesus will punish “those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved,” by appearing dramatically “in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance” that issues “from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,” exactly as he will do that day to the figure of the lawless one, whom he “will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming”—an unmistakable reference to theophanic destruction (2 Thess 1:7-9; 2:8-10). We should allow this passage to set its own scene, and not force into it any preconceived notions about eternal destruction supposedly taking place in a separate location we’ve called “hell.” This article, as well as its second part, argue forcefully against that view.

I agree with Mr. Grice that the “destruction” (or “extermination”) referred to in 2 Thess. 1:9 will involve the death/obliteration (and not the “eternal torment”) of those who are going to be “destroyed” at this time. However, as I’ve argued in greater depth elsewhere (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/01/are-unbelievers-destined-for.html), the “destruction” to which Paul referred in 2 Thess. 1:9 is not going to be “eternal” or “everlasting” in duration. The eon to which the word aiónios pertains in 2 Thess. 1:9 is the eon to come. This eon will begin when Christ returns to earth, and will continue for more than a thousand years. However, this future eon will by no means be endless (for it’s going to be followed by another eon), and the “destruction” of those who will be destroyed at Christ’s return will not be permanent. The worst-case scenario for those who will undergo this threatened destruction at Christ’s return will involve being later cast into the lake of fire (and thus undergoing the “second death”) after being judged at the time of the “great white throne” judgment. Although those who will receive this judicial sentence will miss out on the final eon of Christ’s reign, their salvation will continue to be something that’s willed by God, their Savior (1 Tim. 2:4; 4:10), and they will continue to be among those whose salvation was secured as a result of Christ’s redemptive work on behalf of sinners. Consequently, they shall ultimately be part of the “all” in whom God is going to be “All” after Christ has vivified all and thereby abolished death.

Mr. Grice concludes his article as follows:

There are some interesting philosophical arguments in favor of universalism, and some biblical passages that do speak of a future time when God will be “all in all,” as creation is no longer infected by any evil. But universalism has a core tenet that may be directly challenged, namely, its assertion that there will be an indefinite opportunity to repent and be saved beyond the day of judgment, into the everlasting age of a new heavens and earth.4 1 Corinthians 15:26, 2 Peter 3:9, and Hebrews 12:27 (as well as 2 Thessalonians 1:9) give good reason to seriously doubt that scenario, if not to reject it outright. Together, they present a picture of a climax to redemptive history in which—through means of those climactic events of resurrection and judgment—nothing and nobody persists beyond that point, should they be judged not to belong to the new creation.5

Although Mr. Grice claims that a “core tenet” of all who believe in the salvation of all is that “there will be an indefinite opportunity to repent and be saved beyond the day of judgment,” the fact is that God does not need to give anyone an “indefinite opportunity” to repent. Nor does God need an “indefinite opportunity” to bring about a person’s repentance and post-judgment salvation. God does not need to “wait” for anyone to repent (or “hope” that they do so); when it’s God’s will that someone repents, they will repent (2 Tim. 2:24-25; cf. Acts 5:31; 11:18). And just as God can ensure that certain sinners repent in this lifetime, so he can ensure that all other sinners repent at a future time (i.e., after they’ve undergone whatever judgment they need to undergo before they’re ultimately shown mercy by God, in accord with what we read in Rom. 11:30-32). It should also be noted that the expression ”the everlasting age of a new heavens and earth” occurs nowhere in Scripture. The only “age” associated with the new heavens and new earth is the final “age” (or “eon”) of Christ’s reign – i.e., the eon with which “the eons of the eons” referred to in Rev. 11:15 (and elsewhere) will conclude when Christ delivers up the kingdom to God.[3]

I’ll close this response to Mr. Grice’s article by considering his remark that, when God is All in all, creation will no longer be “infected by any evil.” According to Mr. Grice’s position (and in contrast with what Paul revealed concerning the goal of Christ’s reign), many – if not most – of God’s human creatures are going to remain permanently dead after God has “completed” his redemptive work, and has redeemed “the cosmos as a whole.” And this tragic state of affairs will, according to Mr. Grice, result in a creation that is “no longer infected by any evil.” However, it apparently did not occur to Mr. Grice that death itself is an evil (hence it’s referred to by Paul as an “enemy” that needs to be “abolished”). Thus, a creation in which some remain dead for all time is not (and cannot be) a creation that is “no longer infected by any evil.” Even if only one sinner for whom Christ died is to remain under the dominion of death for an endless duration of time, creation would be permanently “infected by evil.” Thus, in order for creation to “no longer be infected by any evil” (and in order for God to be “All in all”), death must be abolished, and all mankind must be vivified in Christ.

---

[1] According to Mr. Grice’s view, there should be no further enemies remaining in existence after believers have been vivified (for according to Mr. Grice, this event constitutes the abolishing of the last enemy). But that’s not what we find revealed in Scripture. According to Paul, God’s judgment of the unrighteous inhabitants of the earth will not even begin until after believers have been vivified and snatched away from the earth to be with Christ. Since there will be human (as well as angelic/celestial) enemies remaining to be dealt with after the vivification of believers, it cannot be the case that the last enemy is abolished at this time.

[2] Every Bible I’ve consulted accurately translates the plural form of the noun aión as “ages” or “eons” in Eph. 2:7. And this verse alone provides us with irrefutable evidence that the next eon is not endless or “eternal” in duration. Just like the present eon (and the eons that are now past), the next eon – i.e., the first eon of Christ’s reign – will eventually be followed by yet another eon during which Christ will be reigning over the kingdom of God.

[3] For a defense of the accuracy of the translation “eons of the eons” (instead of the more familiar expression “forever and ever”), see the following articles:

http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-meaning-of-aion-in-new-testament.html 

http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-translational-inaccuracy-of-forever_11.html 

http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2021/09/why-john-316-is-not-about-your-eternal_29.html