A reader posed this question:
"Is Jesus a true exception to Romans 5:18a and the other so-called
'universalistic' texts?" He argues, "Christ is a special
case. Not a true exception. A true exception would be someone other
than the God-man, someone who is man alone. Christ doesn't fit the
exception sequence." He then posits three considerations for
disallowing Christ to be an exception to Romans 5:18a.
Others have also said that
my view of Romans 5:18 as two parallel generalizations instead of
two universal statements is illegitimate. They claim I so view this
verse simply because I need these generalizations to form the basis
for Biblical Universalism.*
My reply is that the Reformed
community has noted as a creedal statement that Jesus is an exception
to those who "sinned in Adam," that is, Jesus is an exception
to Rom. 5:18a. "The corruption spread, by God's just judgment,
from Adam to all his descendants--except for Christ alone--not
by way of imitation but by way of the propagation of his perverted
nature" (Canons III-IV, 2). The phrases of Vs. 18 "just
as" and "so also" appear to imply that Jesus fits "the
exception sequence" of Vs. 18a.
The three considerations
submitted by the correspondent for disallowing Jesus Christ to be
an exception to the so-called "universalistic texts" are:
1) "If
there were more exceptions than Christ to all those who fell in Adam
I would accept your argument that both sides of the sequence are generalizations."
My Reply: A boys' basketball league has ten
teams. There is no available girls' team in a certain community
and consequently the boys' team is required to accept a girl
player. This basketball league is no longer an "all boys"
league in the absolute sense the moment one girl becomes an
official player on one of the teams. To now say, "it is
an all boys league" is necessarily a generalization. When
is a generalization constituted? If not with ONE exception,
would two, five, or ten do? To say Rom. 5:18a is not a generalization
because it has only ONE exception and Rom. 5:18b has a plural
number of exceptions is unconvincing.
2) "A
true exception would be someone other than the God-man, someone who
is man alone."
My Reply: Now the
concern is no longer the relative number of exceptions but the fact
that the Jesus is not only man, he is also God and is therefore
not a true exception. Suppose the girl in the above illustration is
not only on the basketball team, she is also on a baseball team. The
fact that she is both a basketball player and a baseball player does
not change the fact that she, as a girl, is an exception to the class
of boys playing basketball.
Even though Jesus was himself
God, he could not be our Savior from sin, except for the fact that
he was also "true man," "the seed of the woman,"
"the son of man." Therefore he is an exception to
those who sinned in Adam. "The justice of God demands it:
man has sinned, man must pay for his sin"
3) "Christ
is a special case." The fact that Jesus is also God means that
he cannot be classified with other mere human beings. He does not
fall into the merely human category and therefore he cannot be an
exception to the category of mere "human beings."
This third consideration
is a recapitulation of the preceding two arguments. Its fallacy
can be seen by substituting the word "true" for "mere."
It would then read:
"Christ
is a special case." The fact that Jesus is also God means that
he cannot be classified with other true human beings. He does
not fall into the truly human category and therefore he cannot be
an exception to the category of true "human beings."
Therefore we must read Romans
5:18as follows — "Consequently, just as the result of one
trespass was condemnation for all men [except Jesus Christ, as we
know from the broader context of Scripture], so also the result of
one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all
men [except those, as we know from the broader context of Scripture,
who will not experience such life]."
We make a serious error
either if we do not accept the truth proclaimed in the Bible's universal
declarations or if we overlook the exceptions that must be understood
fromthe broader context of the Bible.
- - - - - - - - -
*
BIBLICAL UNIVERSALISM is the teaching that all persons are elect in
Christ except those who the Bible expressly declares will be finally
lost, namely, those who ultimately reject or remain indifferent to
whatever revelation God has given of himself to them whether in nature/conscience
or in gospel presentation.
Biblical Universalism is based upon these three biblical facts:
1) The so-called "universalistic" texts speak of a certain-to-be-realized
salvation as Calvinist have consistently maintained and they do so
in terms of all persons as Arminians have always affirmed (Posting
No. 2).
2) We must accept the so-called "universalistic" texts as
written. We may allow only those exceptions that are necessarily imposed
upon these passages from the broader context of the Scriptures as
a whole (Posting No. 3).
3) All persons, except Jesus Christ, are liable for and polluted by
the imputed sin of Adam (original sin). However, the Scriptures do
not teach or imply that anyone is consigned to eternal damnation solely
on the basis of their sin in Adam APART FROM actual, willful and persistent
sin on the part of the person so consigned (Posting No. 4).
Back
to Frequently Asked Questions
Contact the Author,
Neal Punt at: whenindoubt3@charter.net
©
2002 by Northland Books. Box 63, Allendale MI 49401. Unlimited permission
to copy and distribute this document without altering text is hereby
granted if this source is acknowledged.
