If Grace Is True . . . Final Thoughts
This is the final post in a three-part series exploring a book called, If Grace is True: Why God Will Save Every Person by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland. Today, I wish to share a few biblical thoughts on the idea of universalism and God’s love, and also share some thoughts from Christians over the past 2000 years and how they have responded to the claims that God will save all people.
An all too familiar starting place will locate us in the 15th chapter of the gospel of Luke. In this chapter, Jesus shares with the Pharisees three parables – the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son. All of these share this common theme of something being lost, and then the rejoicing of being found. But also present in these stories is the undying, unfailing love of the one seeking. This is especially noticeable in the first two. Jesus poses a question near the beginning of each: “Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it?” (Verse 4); “Or what woman having ten silver coins, if she loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it?” (Verse 8). Then in the story of the prodigal son, upon seeing his son in the distance, the father is filled with compassion and runs to him and kisses him.
From these, I do not find it to be too big of a stretch to think that God’s love is truly unfailing and that there is truly no place where we can escape from God’s love. Is God’s love as great as we say it is? If so, why wouldn’t it continue to work until the last sheep or coin is found, and why wouldn’t it continue to flow until all of God’s creation is brought back into a oneness with him? We also see in these parables the intentionality of the one seeking, laying aside all other matters and focusing strictly on finding the lost one. Is it plausible to think that this is what God does with all humans? Gulley and Mulholland write, “God’s love is without condition. He does not accept us because we are good. God is good, loving, and merciful and therefore accepts us. We are free to resist the grace of God, but we are not free to separate ourselves from God’s love.” This quote raises more questions. If we are able to resist grace but not God’s love, which trumps the other – grace or love? Are they the same thing? Are we saved by God’s grace or by God’s love?
The apostle Paul’s writings are also filled with language of ALL things being reconciled to God and being brought back under the head of Christ. He touches on the idea in Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Colossians. Two church fathers, Origenand St. Jerome, took these instances so seriously that they believe that God will one day be reconciled with Satan. Now that’s quite a thought. The early church in general is thought to believe in the salvation of every person according to Gulley and Mulholland, especially those in the Alexandrian schools. The Eastern Church also held strongly to the idea that all would be saved.
I wanted to close with a couple thoughts from Christians in history.
“In the end and consummation of the Universe all are to be restored into their original harmonious state, and we all shall be made one body and be united once more into a perfect man, and the prayer of our Savior shall be fulfilled that all may be one.” – St. Jerome, 331-420
“Participation in bliss awaits everyone.” – St. Gregory of Nyssa, 335-390
“The mass of men say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished.” – St. Basil the Great, 329-379
“There are very many who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments.” – Augustine, 354-430
If Grace is True . . . Continued
One of the big issues that Philip Gulley and James Mulholland discussed in their book was the problem with atonement theology. In my opinion, this was one of the stronger arguments for universalism that the book contained. Atonement theology, in a nutshell or two, is the doctrine saying that humans have sinned and in order to be reconciled to God, a blood offering must be sacrificed. There must be a payment to suffice for sins. In the Old Testament, we see many examples of these offerings. If you don’t believe me, just start reading Leviticus. It won’t take you long to realize the complexity of the sacrificial system. But returning to the gist of atonement theology, God sent Jesus to be this all-inclusive blood offering, to die for the sins of everybody. Jesus as the once-for-all blood sacrifice. In this moment of his crucifixion (at-one-ment), Christ bore the sins of all humanity. So really, I doubt there are too many Christians who would not agree with atonement theology. However, I believe that although we may say we believe what atonement theology teaches, we only agree with it to a certain extent and not beyond that.
The authors point at a flaw with atonement theology. They claim it does not follow the ethic of Jesus, who rejected the idea of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye. The old system, in effect, was no longer sufficient. It was as if Christ was initiating a new way of life. In studying Jesus’ life and the things he said and the things he did, it would seems as if he did not operate on a just scale. He lived with deep prejudice of love, not love towards those ‘deserving’ or the healthy, but towards those that didn’t deserve it, the scum of the earth, the sick. The authors write, “In any culture obsessed with balanced scales, grace will seem blasphemous.” It seemed that way in Jesus’ day as the Pharisees cried out time and time again questioning Jesus’ actions. The authors continue: “When salvation requires a sacrifice, forgiveness and grace become commodities to be bought rather than gifts of God. More troublesome, Jesus ends up saving us from God rather than from evil. Jesus shields us from a vengeful God rather than leading us toward an abundant life.” Do we really need a blood sacrifice? From the very beginning, we have seen the mercy of God. God spared Adam and Eve when they ate of the apple even after God said they would die if they did. He spared Cain his life even after murdering his brother. And God spared humanity through Noah and promised to never do that again. It is in God’s nature to continue to love even when we fall short. Is atonement theology sufficient for what was accomplished with Christ on the cross? I think not. Was Christ simply trying to spare us from the judgment of God? I hope not. Does God really need blood to forgive our sins? And if so, why did that blood have to be God’s own son? Atonement theology is centered around this idea of justice and grace is anything but just. Grace tips the scales to the unworthy. I cannot imagine anything more unjust than grace. Because if we really got what we deserved which most of us don’t want, we would at least experience justice. The grace of God, on the other hand, is sheer scandal. When we try to justify by saying that Christ had to shed his blood in order for God to forgive us, we are ignoring the great love behind a God, humbling himself to be wrapped in the dust of the earth, only to be rejected by his own creation, and then being crucified on a cross. If the picture of Jesus on the cross says justice to you, I would recommend looking again. Because all I hear is a quiet whisper echoing, “Love . . . love . . . love . . . love . . . love . . .”
