In Isaiah, God calls the prophet to a mission. The mission was to tell them, "Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive" (Isa 6:9). Kind of a strange mission. John understood it a bit differently. He quotes it in John 12 as an intention. "Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.'" (John 12:39-40) Notice the cause assigned in John 12 that wasn't listed in Isaiah's version. "He has blinded ..." The goal or expectation was that they would not see or hear. Not quite what we might have expected.
Of course, that's because we have this simplified view that "God wants everyone to be saved" with the sense of "And, by golly, He's desperately hoping it happens." But a plain reading of Scripture would require a different view. For instance, Paul writes that it's God's will to demonstrate His power and wrath on vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom 9:22). Jesus told His disciples He taught in parables so that "seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand" (Matt 13:13). (He quotes Isaiah on that (Matt 13:14-17)). So clearly John's interpretation in John 12 was simply what Jesus told them. It was not, from the very beginning, God's plan to save everyone. Indeed, God has insured that those whom He intended to save are saved and those He did not are not (Rom 9:14-18).
Letting Scripture speak for God, the conclusion is unavoidable. But is it bad? I don't think so. First, it's God, so whatever He does is good. But there is another consideration. Scripture refers to the Church as the Bride of Christ. Paul says marriage is God's symbolic representation of Christ's relationship to the Church (Eph 5:31-32). The reason, Scripture says, that "all things work together for good" is precisely that we are being conformed to the image of Christ to be His "many brothers" (Rom 8:28-29). That is, God is saving "few" (Matt 7:13-14) for the special purpose of being His own. If His purpose was to save everyone, that special nature of His choice would be diluted, and He would be a failure because not all are saved. So, while, from a human perspective, it might seem unfair that He doesn't save all, I would argue that we should let God be God and side with His choices instead of our own. Like Mary, we should say, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to Your word" (Luke 1:28).
14 comments:
Another portion of the Bible that I can't figure out what Arminians can do with. It seems to me that the "we choose" verses are far more easy for Calvinists to answer for than the "God chooses" verses are for Arminians to answer for.
Your mention of “the Church as the Bride of Christ” together with “God is saving ‘few’ for the special purpose of being His own” gives me greater insight into “that special nature of His choice.” When a man or woman commits themselves exclusively to one other person for life in marriage, they are not faulted for “forsaking all others”--indeed, it is expected; it demonstrates the depth of one’s devotion--even obsession--towards his/her greatest love. So too God is not unloving when He chooses “few” as the objects of His grace and redemption rather than saving all.
Exactly my point, Lorna. If a husband opted to marry everyone, it wouldn't be quite the same, would it?
I don't think this reasoning explains other verses where it's clear that god wants everyone to be saved:
“This is good and acceptable in the sight of our God our savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” (1 Tim. 2:3-6, KJV)
Jesus “is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” (1 John 2:2)
“Since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all died, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22)
etc. Since I agree that god is omnipotent, the only logical conclusion is that all will be saved. This doesn't mean they will all be saved at the same time, or that they will all have the same status or reward, but IN THE END, he will be all in all.
I find it fascinating that people take a few verses like that and turn them into universalism and completely ignore the vast numbers of verses regarding judgment and hell. Indeed, Jesus spoke far more of judgment and its eternal nature than He did about heaven ... but, no, we're pretty sure Jesus's "many" and "few" (Matt 7:13-14) are just plain wrong in the grand scheme of things. By "few" He really meant "everybody".
Stan, I think you're misunderstanding my point. Nowhere did I deny judgment or punishment—I'm simply saying that, in the end, God's ultimate will is likely to reconcile all to Himself. I never claimed everyone is saved immediately or that there is no distinction in timing, reward, or process—only that God's will, as explicitly stated, is to save all in the end. Whether that happens 50 thousand years after the Kingdom or a million, that's what will happen IF that's his will (my understanding) AND he's powerful enough to bring it to fruition.
Also the Greek words which are translated into English as “eternal”, “everlasting”, or “forever” do not strictly mean without end. If you check all of these verses, you will see that they all use some variant of the root word αἰών, meaning "age", "eon". An aion can last a very long time, but it is a finite period of time that ends. The same is true of the Hebrew word עוֹלָם (olam) which the Septuagint translates as αἰών.
In numerous places, Scripture clearly describes things occurring after an olam/aion is complete, which means they must have a temporal completion and are not literally endless Here are some examples:
**“Sodom, Gomorrah and the surrounding cities serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal [αἰωνίου] fire” (Jude 1:7), yet god “will restore their fortunes, the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters” (Ez 16:53).
**Egypt, Moab, the Ammonites, and Elam shall become a “waste forever [עוֹלָ֑ם/τὸν αἰῶνα]” and “rise no more” (Zep 2:9, Jer 25:17-27), yet god will “restore the fortunes of Egypt” (Ez 29:14, cf. Is 19:22), “of Moab” (Jer 48:47), “of the Ammonites” (Jer 49:6), and “of Elam” (Jer 49:39).
**Mountains and hills of the Earth are “eternal” and “everlasting [עוֹלָ֑ם αἰώνιοι]”, until they “were shattered” and “sank low” (Hb 3:6, in the same sentence no less).
**Jonah was locked in Sheol “forever [לְעוֹלָ֑ם/αἰώνιοι]” (Jon 2:1-6), until god delivered him on the third day (v. 10).
While the possibility of an eternal destruction exists (I do not deny it), these verses do not annul the hope of an (eventual) universal salvation.
Also, independently of what the correct understanding is, I want to clarify that Jesus references the kingdom or eonian/eternal life are at least three times more than hell/gehenna. It doesn't mean anything really, but it's a point that keeps being repeated which I think is incorrect per my findings.
So ... you deny the eternal nature of the judgment Jesus described.
You're still dodging the heart of the question, Stan. YOU are "denying" - to use your less-than-graceful word - the MANY passages that speak of a more universal welcome and grace by God. You're still saying "Jesus didn't REALLY mean All when he said he came to save all."
That argument slices into your own personal opinions about the Bad News of Stan. IF one is denying God when they land on one side of this dilemma you have, THEN they're also denying God on the other side.
Given the objective reality of All verses and HELL verses, on what moral, rational and biblical basis do you insist that you and yours have the "right" answer, approved by God?
And again, there are way more verses from Jesus sounding universal than there the handful that might be taken as Hellish.
I'm curious what purpose limited punishment serves. If God plans to save everyone in the end, but some will endure a time of hellish punishment for an unspecified time, but others will go straight to heaven, does that not make God unjust? Shouldn't every single person be subjected to some punishment for their sins then? And if they're being punished for their sins, what purpose did Christ serve on the cross? If we are punished for our sins, then Jesus' death was meaningless. If everyone gets to heaven eventually, then why try to proselytize anyone or correct them, if how we live or what we believe ultimately doesn't matter? And would you be happy in heaven knowing such heinous villains as Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer are going to be redeemed? Or what about people that want nothing to do with God? They hate Him, but He's going to force them to spend eternity in His presence? Universalism makes God unjust and tyrannical.
And you're misunderstanding my point. Scripture says it. I believe it. So if I find a Scripture that says something else, I believe it. If they disagree, I find out how they can agree rather than contradict. And I have yet to find a contradiction that can stand up to that line of reasoning. I don't stand for Scripture contradicting Scripture. Others have no problem with that, but nullifying God's Word in favor of God's Word is a pointless exercise to me.
But, look, if this is going to be a contentious discussion, we can stop. I'm beginning to suspect this "anonymous" is one I've already had to block anyway.
David makes good points above about the fallacy of “universalism,” which clashes with virtually all of the unique teaching of Christian theology. When I read the New Testament, I do not see the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles as presenting a “universal welcome” but rather using clear language that separates people into two distinct groups--those who will enjoy everlasting fellowship with God and those headed to eternal suffering. The irony to me is that those who claim to follow Jesus while promoting an “open and welcoming,” inclusive attitude--thereby bypassing God’s plan of salvation--will, in the end, find themselves not in the favored group that is “in Christ” (i.e. recipients of God’s grace) but instead among those who reject God’s saving Word (Matt. 7:21-23).
I just wanted to clarify that the first two anonymous comments were not made by any known user here (I made them), as it's the first time I comment on the blog. I'll create a user if I comment again (usually go by "Cebador"), but wanted to clarify that.
I think the topic has reached saturation so I'll also refrain commenting on this topic too in the short term. Sorry if I offended anyone, I just love these discussions!
1 Timothy 2:3-6 doesn't appear to be speaking about actual outcome but a command to us. We are to treat everyone as able to be saved. If it truly meant that God Wills everyone to be saved, then why would Paul entreat us to pray for their salvation if it is already a sure thing (1 Tim 2:1-2)?
1 John 2:2 of course He is the only propitiation available, so He is the only propitiation for the world. But combine this with the other verses that speak of those that won't be saved, and you cannot conclude that He has paid for everyone's sin.
Anonymous (Cebador), I am glad you clarified that the first two comments were from you, while the last “anonymous” comment was apparently someone else (the last one did read a bit different from the first two). Therefore, I want to clarify that my comment was prompted by the third anonymous comment and not yours.
Personally, I find anonymous comments a bit confusing (and am surprised that Stan permits them, as they must be problematic for him as well). I learned long ago that one doesn’t even need a Blogger account/profile to submit a comment here but can simply change “Anonymous” to another moniker (real or not) before submission. Although I suppose it would be just as confusing if a commenter was not consistent about his/her identification comment to comment.
Post a Comment