Jesus spoke of "eternal punishment" (Matt 25:46) and described hell as "eternal fire" and "unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:44). Revelation speaks of the "lake of fire" which contains those whose names are not found in the book of life (Rev 20:14-15). John recorded Jesus as saying, "For God so loved the world, that He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). Clarifying, Jesus went on to say, "Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18). Which, of course, is the obvious corollary to "whoever believes ... have eternal life" -- "Whoever does not believe ... does not." But in this very passage we're faced with a dilemma. "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him" (Joh 3:17). It cannot be avoided. Scripture is full of "eternal torment" kinds of warnings for unbelievers. The only way to avoid it is to deny it. Conversely, those who discard the "everyone gets saved" passages are equally unwise. You can't ignore either of them. Either they are actual contradictions and our Bibles are merely nice books to have around, but not authoritative or even trustworthy, or they are not. If they are not contradictions, deleting one or the other isn't necessary. But how do we correlate them while agreeing that both exist?
Paul describes Jesus Christ as the "ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:6) (a problem for those who deny the ransom concept). Paul writes that God is "the Savior of all people" ... then goes on to say, "especially of those who believe" (1 Tim 4:10). Now, that's odd. Apparently "those who believe" fall in a special category of "all men." So is it "all" or not? Not, apparently. So what is the "all"? What is Jesus's "the world might be saved" if it's not the world? It turns out "all" and "the world" mean different things in different contexts. (And we know it.) John writes of "the world" as the entire universe (John 1:10), the physical Earth (John 13:1), the world system (John 12:31), and more. He uses "the world" at times to mean "not believers" versus "believers" (John 7:7; 15:18). So it would be reasonable to argue that the "so" in John 3:16 is not a quantity, but a quality -- "God loved the world in this way ..." What way? Whoever believes receives. All who believe ... but only those who believe. So this "world" refers only to the elect. There is another possibility. Some passages are contingent. For instance, Jesus said, "...in order that the world might be saved through Him." In a similar sense, Jesus would be the only available ransom for all in 1 Tim 2:6 and the only available Savior for all men in 1 Tim 4:10. He is the actual Savior for those who believe ("especially of those who believe").
There are those who are content to sit on "God's Word contradicts God's Word" and still think they've got a useful document. There are those who are happy with cognitive dissonance, holding the Bible is true and not at the same time. But if "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (2 Tim 3:16-17), neither of those options is valid. So we're stuck with "Are the sweeping warnings of eternal damnation real, or are the broad references to universal salvation real?" I can much more readily see, based on the texts and historic church beliefs, that one is true and the other is a misunderstanding. I cannot correlate Scripture's repeated warning of eternal punishment with "but it'll get better." But, please, don't let yourself toss out one text for another. Whatever you do, correlate; don't contradict.
5 comments:
I contend that the Reformed position is the only one that harmonizes Scripture rather than dividing it.
What has drawn me to the Reformed position has been the number of ways it has correlated disparate passages rather than removing them, but I don't think what I wrote was "Reformed." Not this time. I don't mean it's opposed, but it's certainly not limited to Reformed circles.
Yes, I'd agree that the Reformed position does the best job of harmonizing scripture.
I would argue that if the reward of "life" is "eternal" that the punishment must also be eternal. I see no justification for supposing some sort of temporary punishment that rehabilitates sinners.
When I see contradictions and disharmonies within the words of Scripture, I assume that the issue is with me, not God’s Word. I am on a journey of exploration, comprehension, and application; I have not “arrived,” as they say (none of us have). If there are questions and dilemmas in my mind, I should continue to study and learn. “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting….” (James 1:5-6). I often pray, “Lord, I don’t understand this; please help me to understand this,” and I trust that He will do that. To me, it is part of having a “childlike faith”--being humble and teachable, rather than a defiant and haughty know-it-all.
Since Christian doctrine in general and soteriology in particular are strong interests of mine and therefore areas I have explored and studied a bit, I currently don’t see a dilemma with the Scriptures containing “all,” “none,” “few,” and “many” references. Like David, I have found that “Reformed Theology” presents the best understanding of them, and like Stan, I believe that even “non-Calvinists” will be able to correlate and harmonize the various biblical teachings about God’s sovereignty, salvation, election, grace, and eternal destinies.
When it's the true position, it's hard not to include it everywhere.
Post a Comment