Just coming with my two cents worth. Try CS Lewis “The Great Divorce”. A viable theory is that universal salvation is available to all, but some will not don the wedding garment provided by the bridegroom. In other words they refuse the offer of salvation for whatever reason for example Hitler might refuse when he found that Jews are welcome in the kingdom. Lewis has an example of this in the Black Dwarves who refuse to see the banquet set before them as they are so busy fighting over the garbage which is all they can see. God, by his own rules cannot force us to be saved, but his generosity and grace offers salvation to all. One thing is very clear to me Christ died for all, not just for those who believe in him. St Paul rated faith a long way behind love, those who feed the hungry and clothe the naked, help the prisoners are far more advanced on the road to salvation than those who sit smugly bastioned behind their faith, in other words the pharisees.
Really?
(emphasis added)
If you mis-spoke, fine; it happens to all of us, but I can hardly be responsible for your failure to say what you mean. If we’re agreed that belief in eternal torment was present in the first- and second-century church, we need not discuss the point further.
The point, however, is not insignificant. It it were the case that there was no recorded belief in eternal torment before Augustine wrote The City of God in 410 AD, then I’d agree that defenders of that position would be in a harder place. The question does really come down to the teaching of scripture, of course, not the beliefs of the early church (to the extent they can be ascertained), but nonetheless early beliefs are relevant to show how they understood scripture.
Mike, I’m focusing on this question because I believe it’s foundational, and also because I haven’t had time to compose a thorough response to all your points. You seem to be viewing God’s salvation as resulting in some way from an obligation on his part to his creation, though as yet you’ve refused to say exactly what you think God owes his creation, and on what scriptural basis, though you don’t hesitate to put words in my mouth. And if you think there’s obligation involved, we have a fundamental disconnect that discussion of, e.g., 2 Peter 3:9 or 1 Timothy 2:4 won’t address.
God’s obligation
Though to this point you’ve falsely attributed to me words I haven’t written, you have accurately surmised my position–my answer to the question I posed to you is that God owes his creation exactly nothing. Not even an electronic sausage. I say this, first, because “owes” necessarily indicates an external, superior authority to impose the obligation. I hope we can agree that there is no authority external to God that is superior to him. Secondly, I say this because he himself says this[1]. Your crack that this can only be “if God has no morals” falls flat–God is, by definition, good; he is not bound by your, my, or anyone else’s sense of “morals”. Anything he gives his creation is a gracious gift, not something he owes it.
God is not obligated to love any of his creation, though he does. Having loved some, he is not obligated to love all, though again he does. Having loved all, he is not obligated to love them all in the same way or to the same extent, and both his express statements[2] and biblical history[3] demonstrate that he does not in fact do this. And the metaphor of Christ as the bridegroom supports this as well–would we call a man who loved all women in the same way, and to the same degree, a good husband?
How does God love all his creation? Well, he gives us air to breathe:
Food, water, other necessities of life, and physical comforts are perhaps the most obvious examples[4]. He’s put his law in our hearts, so that we have a pretty good sense of right and wrong even without the Bible (though we can suppress that if we work hard enough, as western culture seems to be doing). He restrains sin, protecting us from the full extent of man’s wickedness. This isn’t exhaustive, of course, but I think it gets the idea across.
God’s sovereignty
I turn next to the point of God’s sovereignty, because understanding this will be critical to making sense of the rest of my position. Quite simply, God is sovereign over everything that happens, from the greatest to the least. See Psalm 33:11[5], Eph. 1:11[6]. As R.C. Sproul was fond of saying, “there are no stray molecules in the universe.”
Yes, this position (at least expressed this absolutely) is a minority view among Christians, even if it isn’t entirely unique to thoroughgoing Calvinists. I’m convinced, however, that it’s thoroughly Biblical.
God’s morality
God is the source of morality. In addition to writing his law on our hearts (which is a large part of Lewis’s argument for at least theism in Mere Christianity ), he’s also laid it out in the Bible, most clearly, albeit in summary, in the Ten Commandments.
The “conflict”
It’s obvious that there is sin in the world. If God ordains all that happens, this must mean that he ordains those sinful acts. But this isn’t simply an inference; it’s the express statement of scripture. See Genesis 50:19-21[7], Isaiah 10:5-11[8], Acts 2:23[9]. In this sense God can be said to have two wills which aren’t consistent with each other. Reformed theologians speak of the distinction between between God’s “decree” and his “command”; I don’t find that phrasing very helpful because the two terms sound synonymous. I instead prefer the phrasing of “God’s moral will” and “God’s sovereign will,” as I think it makes the distinction clearer. But the upshot, however phrased, is that God desires and commands his creatures to behave in a certain way (his moral will), and at the same time sovereignly ordains that, in some cases, they will not behave in that way (his sovereign will).
The question of salvation
So with that as background, let’s look at some of those passages (which Mike hasn’t quite gotten around to citing) that “clearly teach” universal salvation. Since he hasn’t bothered to cite them, I can only speculate, but two good candidates would be 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4. Here’s 2 Peter 3:8-10:
8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
The desire “that all should reach repentance” is certainly part of God’s moral will[10]. But is it his sovereign will? It would certainly seem to make Christ’s warning in Luke 12:4-5[11] moot.
As an alternative view, the “any” and “all” in verse 9 could be taken (again, in a more distinctly Calvinist view) to refer to God’s elect. Under that view, God is delaying his arrival in judgment until the full number of those he has chosen have come to faith and repentance.
Here’s 1 Timothy 2:1-4:
1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The same two possible interpretations above could be applied here, and there’s also a third possibility. The “all people” in verse 1 is clarified in verse 2 (later in the same sentence; the verse numbers of course didn’t exist until 1551) to mean all kinds of people, specifically kings and others in high places (despite the persecution they were visiting on the church at the time). It isn’t difficult to imagine that when Paul uses the same phrase in the next sentence, he means the same thing.
The justice of eternal punishment
You ask how a loving God could eternally punish some of his people. I’ve previously pointed out that love isn’t God’s only, or even primary, attribute. Also, love does not preclude just punishment. And what is the just punishment for rebellion against an infinite God? Because that’s what we are. R.C. Sproul described sin as “cosmic treason”; Lewis says that “Fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs improvement: he is a rebel who must lay down his arms.” The just punishment for an infinite offense would itself be infinite.
See, e.g., Job 41:11 (“Who has first given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine.”), Romans 11:35 (same) ↩︎
Romans 9:13, previously cited; Mal. 1:2-3 (same); pretty much the whole book of Hosea ↩︎
To cite just a few examples, God’s choice of Abram/Abraham, his choice of Isaac above Ishmael, his choice to make Israel his people in a special way not shared by the rest of the nations. ↩︎
See, e.g., Matthew 5:44-45, Acts 17:25. ↩︎
10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing;
he frustrates the plans of the peoples.
11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever,
the plans of his heart to all generations. ↩︎In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will , (emphasis added) ↩︎
19 But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? 20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. 21 So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones.” Thus he comforted them and spoke kindly to them. ↩︎
5 Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger;
the staff in their hands is my fury!
6 Against a godless nation I send him,
and against the people of my wrath I command him,
to take spoil and seize plunder,
and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
7 But he does not so intend,
and his heart does not so think;
but it is in his heart to destroy,
and to cut off nations not a few;
8 for he says:
“Are not my commanders all kings?
9 Is not Calno like Carchemish?
Is not Hamath like Arpad?
Is not Samaria like Damascus?
10 As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols,
whose carved images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria,
11 shall I not do to Jerusalem and her idols
as I have done to Samaria and her images?” ↩︎this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. ↩︎
Acts 17:30-31: "30The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” ↩︎
4I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. 5But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!
Casting into hell here is clearly distinct from simple death, so the understanding of “hell = hades = the grave” doesn’t explain this passage–under that understanding, “those who kill the body” would “cast into hell,” but we’re clearly told that they don’t and can’t. ↩︎
Dan, the focus on what God “owes” his creation is not a focus of mine, and is misplaced in any case. Virtually all of scripture that talks about God not being “obligated” to do this or that are not at all in the same context of the very many places in scripture that speak of God’s promise to ultimately redeem all mankind. I find it similarly silly that you spent so much effort to parse my words about Augustine being the beginning of the primacy of eternal and everlasting punishment in the church. Well, he WAS! I didn’t mean to imply that no one had ever had that thought ever before, but simply that it was not largely accepted, whereas the idea that God would ultimately redeem all of his creation - all souls, eventually, by his refining fire - WAS the predominant view. Surely this is obvious at this point.
I do most definitely disagree with you when you say that while God is love, he is not primarily love. Yes, he is primarily love, and in the end his love will conquer all, and he will be all in all, and all creation will be subject to him. And it says such things all throughout scripture. It’s only “not clear” when these scriptures are subjected to the interpretive filter of certain systematic theologies. These filters also generate the need for speculating on different kinds of God’s will, whereas it is not a problem for me! God’s will WILL BE accomplished, ultimately! (The role of God as a bridegroom speaks narrowly of his special relationship to the church in this earthly realm, to whom he has given the spirit, and whom he will put in places of honor in the kingdom to come; it does not relate to who is ultimately saved in the end.)
THE MAIN POINT is that any kind of robust study of words in the original languages as they are used in all of scripture simply makes it CLEAR AS HELL (pardon the pun) that aionios simply should NOT EVER be translated as “everlasting” in virtually all cases. And that “unquenchable” fire is a fire that no one can put out EXCEPT God himself, when it’s refining purpose is complete.
And Dan, when you say:
The desire “that all should reach repentance” is certainly part of God’s moral will[10]. But is it his sovereign will? It would certainly seem to make Christ’s warning in Luke 12:4-5[11] moot.
It simply shows that you are either not paying attention, or have no ability to comprehend what I have been saying. **Verse 5 ends with "**Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.” How can you even possibly think this is some kind of challenge to my thinking on this subject??? Really, I am at a loss. Are you even paying attention, or reading at all with comprehension? Do you really think that the words “throw you into hell” undo me? If so, then you really need to read some of the fathers I quoted and the books I have linked to. Plus, it simply begs the question! Hell is not eternal punishment without end! It is the refining fire of God to purge sin and rebellion from those who are subjected to it. Really, Dan, I thought that was, er, obvious as hell…
I agree with almost everything you say, Elizabeth Lee. The only way I tend to not agree is that Hitler could ultimately prove so stubborn that even an almighty, super-loving and intelligent and persistent God would ultimately fail to instruct him and correct him “no matter how long it took.” Yeah, I just don’t see that. I believe that Lewis came up with final caveat that really only those who continually choose not to accept salvation are those who do not enter the life of God in Christ, because he accepted the corrupt view of Augustine that eternal punishment and exclusion from such God-life was orthodox. But if that were so, and Augustine was right, then Christ could never deliver “all things” to the Father so that God becomes “all in all.”
I do wish you’d cite these “very many places in scripture” that you think promise this–as yet, the only scripture you’ve cited in this entire discussion is to make a passing reference to Matthew 25:46, which, well, doesn’t say this at all. I’ve cited more scripture to support your position than you have.
Yes, he is primarily love,
(citation needed)
God’s will WILL BE accomplished, ultimately!
God’s moral will demonstrably is not accomplished in many cases. Even on the view that all are ultimately saved, that does not undo the wrong they did, nor does it accomplish the good they left undone. If God’s law is truly a reflection of his will, then it is kept or broken in time, and cannot be retroactively un-broken after having been broken.
aionios simply should NOT EVER be translated as “everlasting” in virtually all cases.
…and thus virtually every translator of the Bible, into any language, has it wrong. This is an extraordinary claim, Mike, and it requires extraordinary proof. I’ll admit that I’m not a scholar of biblical Greek (and, unless I miss my guess, neither are you), but I’d note that my Greek lexicon (Gingrich and Danker, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed.) gives as the first definition for αἰών:
very long time, eternity: in the past, earliest times, ages long past Lk 1:70; since the world began J 9:32. In the future to eternity, in perpetuity J 6:51, 58. forevermore Ro 16:27; Hb 13:21
Thus, they would appear to disagree with you.
After stripping away the rhetoric, your position is that hell is a place of purification, after which its inhabitants will be ultimately (and surely, because you believe all will be saved) translated to glory. I leave it to the reader to decide whether Christ’s repeated and emphatic warning to fear the one who can send you there makes sense under this interpretation.
Dan, Dan, Dan… I often quote scripture without citing reference numbers. Are you next going to accuse Jesus of “not citing scripture” in his preaching because he didn’t give chapter and verse? Lol. I have provided a link to the book Hope Beyond Hell, and Carolyn has confirmed that the book is chock full of references, so if you are interested enough and have an open mind, I urge you to read it. If you did, you would not make silly arguments against what I have written by citing a greek New Testament lexicon! You’re kidding, right? The definitions from such a book are simply going to reflect the 1500 years of translation history! Again, it’s begging the question of whether those Augustinian emphases are off base. And if you read the book, you’d see that – if you let actual word usage in scripture be your guide, modern scholarship is mostly tragically wrong when it comes to aionios. YOU would see it.
But only if you look. And really, I have taken the time to gather and organize and post all of this for those who want to explore it. Those who think there is a problem with the teaching on this subject. Those whom the Spirit is showing that God is bigger and more powerful and more full of love than they’ve been led to believe by the traditions of men…the traditions of theologians.
I don’t expect you to explore these robust resources, because — so you have stated — you are convinced of the correctness of your opinion in this matter. I, however, am ALWAYS willing to change my mind. I just need to see some compelling evidence.
Where you have really shown (to me, at least) how wrongheaded your position is, is when you say:
Even on the view that all are ultimately saved, that does not undo the wrong they did, nor does it accomplish the good they left undone. If God’s law is truly a reflection of his will, then it is kept or broken in time, and cannot be retroactively un-broken after having been broken.
It’s all about ETERNAL vengeance with you, isn’t it. The Law applies to God’s people (Israel) and the penalties for violating it are not eternal. And even the judgements promised Israel for violating the law are not immutable; repentance can bring God’s redemption. You also keep harping on how the concept of “fearing” God somehow argues against my position. How do you arrive at that? I do not really want to suffer his refining fire, his judgment, even if it doesn’t last forever.
There are many people who are afraid of God too much. They are unable to rest even in their own personal salvation, ultimately. They are deathly afraid that God’s love may not cover their sins. And we all sin.
I think, then, that I have done all I can do. I hope my contributions prove, not just helpful, but restorative for some of you.
Michael
LHH
You may “often” do that, but you haven’t done it once in this discussion. You’ve made vague references to your characterization of “many passages” with no further reference whatsoever, and you haven’t quoted a thing. I don’t think I need to remind you that chapter and verse numbers didn’t exist until 1200 (in the case of chapters) and 1500 (in the case of verses) years after Christ’s ascension, respectively, but he did at least quote the scripture he was referring to, something you have yet to do. And since chapter and verse numbers have been in common (and standard) usage for centuries, and you have Google (or other search engine of choice) to help you if your memory fails you for specifics, you really have no excuse for not giving specific citations. Unless the references aren’t as many, or as clear, as you have represented them to be.
Yes, I believe my belief is correct, but that’s tautological, isn’t it? You similarly believe that your belief is correct. I’m willing to consider biblical argument to the contrary–I’ve done it before (and changed my position), and no doubt I’ll do it again. But you haven’t given any–you’ve given “read this book” and “guess what scripture I have in mind,” with a side of “virtually every translator of the Bible ever, into any language, has translated a key term incorrectly.”
Well, I haven’t read the book. I have, however, read the article that you praised as “VERY good” on medium.com, and contained multiple, inexcusable historical errors. If there are such serious errors there in the things I already knew, I can’t trust it as a source for information I didn’t already know. And if that’s your standard for a “VERY good” resource, well, I don’t have much faith in your judgment on what constitutes a good resource.
And you accuse me of not reading what you write. Not a word of what you quoted has anything to do with eternal anything; it’s simply a statement of the truth that God’s moral will (i.e., the moral portion of his law) often is not done. Even if you wrongly believe that God’s moral law applied only to Israel, pretty much the entire Old Testament from Exodus forward is the record of Israel repeatedly violating God’s moral law. When you sin, you break God’s moral law. When you break God’s moral law, God’s moral will is not done. That your sin is forgiven, that you are redeemed, that you are washed, purified, justified, glorified, are all great things–praise be to God–but they do not change the fact that God’s moral will was not accomplished when you sinned.
I think we can agree on one thing, though: God will not fail to save to the utmost every one of those he intends to save.
Bless you, Michael, for trying. I’ve given up, and simply pray
that the Lord will show to His children, the Truth. Because I have
found that argument doesn’t. Why else do we have centuries of
learned argument, resulting too often in violence and persecution
of one side or another, but so very rarely, consensus? It is the
role of the Holy Spirit to teach us; relying on human teachings,
however saintly and learned, has brought us to a state where it is
easier to make up our own minds than LISTEN to the Spirit. We have
the mind of Christ only insofar as we listen to Him. May He be
heard, and may He bless us all in this time of remembrance of His
sacrifice for all.
Carolyn in OZ
Okay, so I don’t expect Dan to take the 15 minutes to do this, and he pretends ignorance of all the many, many scriptures that talk about how God PLAINLY offers salvation to all people. Since it would be a copyright violation to do this, and I simply don’t have the time to rewrite it all in my own wording, here is a simple but really terrific listing of many (not all) of the most significant scriptures re this, and they are SO CLEAR and SO CONVINCING that the only way to deny them is to engage in theological mumbo jumbo to explain them away!
All one needs do is look at pages 79 through 84 of the FREE BOOK Hope For All. 6 pages. 6 easy pages, not crammed with small type. Surely that is worth your time if there is any chance that what I am saying is true? I am telling you, along with Carolyn, that doing this will make you fall in love with God all over again! And your jaw drop in amazement at God’s plan for saving mankind.
You can read it right now for free at https://hopeforallfellowship.com
Sincerely,
Michael
Once again you misrepresent me. You know perfectly well that “the many, many scriptures that talk about how God PLAINLY offers salvation to all people” have never been mentioned in this discussion until this post of yours a few hours ago. I’m aware of many passages (they may or may not be the same ones you’re thinking of–I can’t read your mind, and you persist in refusing to cite them) that promise that God will save those who turn to him in faith and repentance, and offers salvation to all people on those terms. But unless you’ve done an exceptionally poor job of stating your position, or I’ve done an exceptionally poor job of understanding it, that isn’t the question here. Rather, the question is your position that
I have become convinced over my lifetime that my Father in heaven is the Father of all, and loves all, and will not fail to ultimately save all.
I’ll now do what you continue to refuse to do, and list every citation on pages 79-84 of the ebook you cite: Quoted are Romans 5:15,18-20, 11:26,32; 1 Cor 15:22, 26-28, 54-55; Phil 2:9-11; Eph. 1:9-11; Col. 1:19-20; 1 Tim 2:3-6, 4:9-11,12-15. Summarized are Luke 2:10, 3:6; Acts 3:21,25-26; Gal 3:8; Titus 2:11; Hebrews 8:10-12; Rev. 15:4,21:5. Was that really so hard?
At a casual glance, a couple of red flags are immediately apparent:
- The author freely hops around among translations, quoting whichever one suits the desired interpretation
- The author also heavily edits the quotations, both by adding words in brackets (some of which are justified, others not) and by removing them with ellipses.
Those don’t give me much hope for sound exegesis in the text, but that will need to wait for further study.
Well, good, Dan. You looked! That is a step 1. Now if you follow that up with the super-convincing study of scripture itself, that shows conclusively that aionios in every other context does NOT mean eternal, but some limited time or era, whether long or short, you will discover the power of these very clear passages. That study is at the beginning of the more scholarly tome of Beuchemin’s called Hope Beyond Hell, which also contains references to dozens of other works, many authored as far back as the 19th century.
In the discussion of 1 Tim 2 on page 82, there are a number of issues. One of them is the deliberate use of the KJV to obfuscate the meaning of 1 Tim 2:4 (“will” simply meant something different 400 years ago; “desire” is a more accurate translation in modern English); another is the extremely selective quoting of those verses. But the point I want to address is the treatment of God’s will, which the book’s discussion oversimplifies.
As I’ve said above, the book agrees: God is sovereign; everything he ordains (and only what he ordains) will surely come to pass, precisely when and how he ordains it to happen. I repeat Sproul’s aphorism that “there are no stray molecules in the universe”–everything, without exception, is proceeding exactly as God has ordained, from the grand plan of salvation and the movement of the galaxies, to the leaf that falls from the tree in my front yard this morning. It’s on this basis that the book justifies the use of the KJV with its incorrect (for modern English) translation that God “will have all people to be saved”–whatever God wants to happen does happen, so what does it matter if we turn a statement of desire into a future tense indicative statement?
But there is another aspect of God’s will, and that’s his moral will or his law. And this, Mike, is where I take issue with your statement that “God’s will WILL BE accomplished, ultimately!” It simply isn’t consistent with the biblical record. We see throughout the Bible, from Genesis 3 forward, that:
- God commands people to behave in a certain way, and
- They do not, in fact, behave in that way.
Given those facts, there are only three possibilities:
- God is dishonest in his commands–he doesn’t actually desire people to behave as he’s commanded them to behave
- God earnestly desires that people behave as he’s commanded, but is unable to make that happen
- God’s will is multifaceted; it’s possible for him to simultaneously desire certain moral behavior, and ordain that such will not happen.
I don’t believe that either of the first two possibilities is tenable; the first as a matter of God’s character, the second as a matter of his sovereignty. That leaves the third, and it’s on that basis that I say that, no, God’s will is not always done. People lie. People steal. People covet. People dishonor their parents. People commit murder. All of these things happen in time, and when they’re done, they’re done. God’s moral will, in those actions, has not been kept (even as each of these actions is precisely in line with God’s sovereign will[1]; they could not be otherwise). God’s work in salvation, wondrous as it is, doesn’t erase those sins from history.
The book’s failure to recognize or address the distinction between God’s moral will and his sovereign will is a serious deficiency in its treatment of 1 Tim 2; it also fails to address the points I’ve raised previously (which are by no means original to me), particularly the immediately-preceding context which tells the reader what “all people” means here (and it isn’t “every person on earth without exception”).
-
I can already hear your derision of this terminology as evidence of the lens of a systematic theology. I borrow the phrasing from Garry Friesen’s excellent Decision Making and the Will of God, even though it isn’t the phrasing used by most systematic theologians in the Reformed camp; I prefer Friesen’s phrasing because I think it’s clearer than the more typical Reformed distinction between God’s “decree” and his “command.” I don’t much care about the phrasing, though; if you prefer different terminology, knock yourself out. But I do believe, as I’ve discussed previously in this topic, that the concepts represented by these terms are thoroughly biblical. ↩︎
O Magic Dragon, your magiks with words are dazzling you to the point of blindness! You cannot see the forest because there are too many trees in the way!
You cite the discussion of 1 Tim 2 in the book, and then claim the author tries to obfuscate the point (that the word can also mean “wish” or “desire”) while the exact paragraph below the citation explicitly mentions that while “desire” (per Vine) is not a likely meaning here, what if it is “desire.” The author cites scripture where God repeatedly says he intends to accomplish "all my desires” and “bring them to pass.”
Here is the actual passage from the book, and I am going to quote it in full because it shows how you are so terribly missing the discussion as you focus on your theological Mumbai jumbo hocus pocus.
QUOTE
- God’s good pleasure “purposed … that in the … fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things [especially people314] in Christ … who works all things according to the counsel of His will.” (Eph 1:9-11)
God’s purpose is to unite all people into one, in Christ. What He decrees cannot be stopped, not even by our present rebellion. In the fullness of time, God will unite every single person through repentance and faith in Jesus.315 This is not hard to believe when we know God’s true character and nature—His unending love for all, His unfailing power to change us and His irresistible will.
- “It pleased the Father … by Him [Christ] to reconcile all things [especially people316] to Himself … having made peace through the blood of His cross.” (Col 1:19-20)
Note: The text states “all” not “some.” The Father’s pleasure is to reconcile all people to Himself—everyone! Yet sadly, many think the reconciliation of “all things” is not about people. But what would please our loving Father more? Reconciling His wayward children to Himself, or frogs, fish and flowers which need no reconciliation?
Furthermore, this reconciliation is through the blood of Christ’s cross, which Scripture declares was shed for human beings.317 To limit the power and extent of Christ’s blood to cleanse and reconcile all people, in my view, dishonors His precious blood shed for all. I do not see any limits on what the blood of Christ has achieved and on what pleases the Father, especially since this was His intention from before creation.318
- “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; who will 319 have all people to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth … Jesus … gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”
(1Tm 2:3-6 KJV)
Many translations state “desires” here instead of “will” which implies that God only “wishes” to save all people but cannot. W. E. Vine defines the Greek thelõ here as: “‘to will, to wish,’ implying volition and purpose, frequently a determination, is most usually rendered ‘to will.’”320 That being said, even if thelõ were to mean “desires” in this passage, it doesn’t change anything because God accomplishes all His desires and does whatever He pleases anyway.
“Whatever His soul desires He does.” (Jb 23:13)
“God … does whatever He pleases.” (Ps 115:3)
“I am God … I will do all My pleasure … I will also bring it to pass.” (Is 46:9-11)
The essential point is that God is GOD; He does all His will.
Note what I have italicized in the introduction and close of our key text. Paul underlines the truth that what is good in God’s sight is that in due time, all will know that His desire to save all will be fulfilled.
CLOSE QUOTE
Immediately the author follows by citing 1 Tim 4: 9-11
“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially [malista G3122] of those who believe. These things command and teach.”
He gives the Greek word for “especially” because agenda-driven theologians try to say that especially means “that is” to have the force of “that is, all men who believe.” But he then cites Gal 6:10.
“Let us do good to all people, and especially [malista] to those … of the faith.”
And then appropriately asks if we are to only do good to “all people of faith” and not to unbelievers? So then, God is the savior of all men, something stated explicitly in scripture after scripture, but which the theologians defending their “systems” tell us really mean ONLY “all those who believe now before they die.” Depending in the system, that can also exclude infants who die before expressing faith in Christ.
Earlier in the epistle, Paul introduced another text with the exhortation that his statement was “faithful and worth of complete acceptance”:
“This is a faithful statement and worthy of all acceptance: that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” (1Tm 1:15)
And the theologians rush in to say “But of course, only those few sinners who express faith in Christ now.”
But Beauchemin writes (and I could have written this myself, and did, earlier in this thread:
So then, in what way are believers “especially” saved? They are saved now, in this life, in the sense that they are demonstrating the character of Christ before the world, giving evidence of their salvation. [page 83]
I find it interesting how many theologian-types seem so resistant to the amazing truth of God’s persistent love, and his intent to save all men (stated clearly over and over), even when they are aware of the terrible historic mistranslation of aionios to mean “everlasting” — it’s almost like they are offended that God would save “the unqualified” and “the unworthy.”
They seem to need and adore their Torturer God.
Michael
Lord High Heretic
Indeed. So does God not desire that men obey his commands? You’ve missed my point, as cleanly as the Dufflepods did.
While I was waiting for Mike to answer whether God desires that people obey his commands (the question was not rhetorical), I took some time to consider the scripture citations from the book, starting with the end of the section Mike pointed us to.
On page 84 of the cited book, a bunch of scripture citations are given with one-line summaries of the verses cited. But the summaries are, not to put too fine a point on it, rather misleading. I’ll go through them, listing the reference, what the book says it says, what it actually says (quoting the ESV), and commenting as I think appropriate. No doubt Mike will dismiss this as further evidence of my being blinded by tradition or some such thing; I’ll leave it to current and future readers to judge between us (but more importantly, to the Lord to judge my understanding of his word, and to correct it where I err).
Luke 2:10
All people are to receive good tidings of great joy.
And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.
The definite article is important here–the good news is for all the people, i.e., the people of Israel, and it’s that their promised savior and messiah has come.
Luke 3:6
All flesh shall see the salvation of God.
and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
The quote is nearly exact, except that it omits the leading “and” indicating that this is only part of the sentence. That all flesh shall “see” salvation is not at all the same as to say that they will experience it; this could just as well mean that the condemned witness the salvation of the saved. This also predicts that God’s salvation will be extended to the Gentiles, rather than being limited to the Jews as previously.
Acts 3:21, 25-26
All (esp. people) will be restored in the fullness of time.
All families (every person–v. 26) of the earth shall be blessed.
19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. 22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’ 24 And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. 25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ 26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.”
The first line above is the book’s summary of verse 21; the second is its summary of verses 25-26.
I think several verses are required for context here–the book assumes that “restoring” necessarily means salvation, but the two verses immediately following directly contradict that understanding, and the verses preceding condition the blotting out of sin on repentance. It may be objected that all will repent, and all will listen to that prophet, and it’s true that this passage doesn’t directly contradict this, but it would make the warning of verse 23 superfluous.
Verse 25 recounts the promise to Abraham that in his offspring all families will be blessed. Once again, there’s an unwarranted assumption here that the “blessing” necessarily includes eternal salvation. There’s also an unwarranted equating of the “all the families of the earth” in verse 25 with “every one of you” in verse 26, which is contrary to the text itself.
In verse 26, Peter is addressing his listeners as a distinct group (“God . . . sent him to you first”), and the “you” there refers to Israel as a whole. The “every one of you” later in the verse could refer to the same group, but more likely refers to the immediate group to whom Peter is speaking. In no sense could any of the instances of “you” in verse 26 refer to all of humanity without distinction, as that would render the “sent him to you first” meaningless.
1 Cor 15:28
“All in all” is what God has promised to become in every person.
When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
The summary here is correct as far as it goes, but has entirely the wrong focus–the focus is on God, and the universal acceptance of his supreme authority.
Gal 3:8
All peoples shall be blessed is the Gospel
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”
The unwarranted assumption that “blessing = salvation” is repeated. The verse also promises the blessing, not to all people ( i.e., every individual), but to all nations (Greek ἔθνη). All people groups will hear the gospel (which is itself a blessing), and people from all people groups will be saved and worship God around the throne. Nothing here promises, or even hints at, universal salvation.
Titus 2:11
All are brought salvation by God’s grace
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
Again, context matters. This is another reference to salvation being offered to all people, and especially to all ethnic groups, and elaborating on what that salvation does , particularly in the present life.
Hebrews 8:10-12:
All will know Him, from the least to the greatest.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”
The book’s summary of this passage is downright deceptive. This quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 foretells the new covenant with God’s people that will be (from Jeremiah’s perspective) or has been (from the perspective of the writer to the Hebrews, and from our perspective today) enacted in Christ. The promise from Jeremiah is that all the house of Israel will know God. As Israel were the people of God in the OT, the church are the people of God in the NT, so the promise, now fulfilled in Christ, is that all God’s people will know him directly, rather than through the system of priests and sacrifices.
Revelation 15:4
All nations shall come and worship before Him.
3 And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,
“Great and amazing are your deeds,
O Lord God the Almighty!
Just and true are your ways,
O King of the nations!
4 Who will not fear, O Lord,
and glorify your name?
For you alone are holy.
All nations will come
and worship you,
for your righteous acts have been revealed.”
Once again, “all nations” doesn’t in any way mean “all individuals.” And yes, the redeemed comprise “a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Rev. 7:9). But that continues to not be the issue; rather, the issue is the claim that every single person will be saved. And these verses do nothing at all to support that claim.
Revelation 21:5
All things (includes everyone) will be made new … these words are true and faithful.
5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” 6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Yes, all things (the inference that all individual people are included is unwarranted) are made new, as shown in the new heaven and new earth of verse 1. And having made all things new, he then promises salvation to all, right? No, he doesn’t; verse 8 in fact says the exact opposite of this. It’s worth noting that verse 8 comes after verse 5–the wicked are cast into the lake of fire after all things are made new. And, though I’m sure you’ll be quick to point out that verse 8 doesn’t say that the wicked will be there forever, it also gives no indication that it will be temporary, or that anything will follow the lake of fire. Rather, it reads like this is their final destination: “their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Notably absent is any indication of a time or condition upon which their dwelling in the lake of fire will terminate.
God’s Promises
And although it is, strictly speaking, outside the section of the book that Mike asked us to consider, the following statement near the bottom of page 84 bears some consideration:
There is great power in God’s promises. Even God’s law cannot annul them or make them ineffective. Neither can our human frailty and sins prevent their fulfillment.
(emphasis added). The part in bold is simply false, and you don’t have to look very hard in the Bible to prove it. See, for example, 1 Samuel 2:30-31:
30 Therefore the Lord, the God of Israel, declares: ‘I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever,’ but now the Lord declares: ‘Far be it from me, for those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed. 31 Behold, the days are coming when I will cut off your strength and the strength of your father’s house, so that there will not be an old man in your house.
God promised Eli that he and his house would minister before the Lord forever, but Eli’s sons were wicked, and Eli did not restrain them. As a result God took the ministry from Eli’s house–he and his sons all died the same day, and Samuel replaced them.
I’d also take issue with the “Even God’s Law cannot . . .” statement as it denies the harmony of God’s word affirmed by Mercy Aiken on the very next page
After reading Dan’s latest post on his evaluation of a portion of the book I recommended, it is apparent to me that the most critical aspect of approaching this topic when reading scripture is mindset. Perhaps another way of stating it is the working hypothesis one has when approaching scripture.
In specific passage after specific passage, this is clearly significant. For example, when the scripture says something like “In the end, every knee will bow down to god and every tongue will confess he is lord,” a person whose mindset (from tradition or a study of some systematic theology) is that essential to the gospel is the divine threat of never-ending torment for unbelievers will “explain” this text by saying that, “yes, every soul who ever lived will bow and confess, but it will be too late for them, they will do so in anguish, knowing that their everlasting torture is about to commence.”
See how this works? You can read how “God must put all things under Christ’s feet” so that “all enemies are defeated” and “the last enemy to be defeated is death itself” and how God will accomplish “the final restoration of all things” so that ultimately “God will be all in all” and that “all flesh will see it” when “there shall be no more pain or crying or death” for God in Christ will be “the savior of all men, especially those who believe” YET IF YOU HAVE THE ETERNAL TORTURE MINDSET you can explain every single one of these statements away!
For example, you could say that “especially those who believe” refers NOT to those who have special standing with God because they believe now, and will escape the refining fires of divine judgment to come, but rather that it means EXCLUSIVELY those who believe. You can say it, but when you realize the wording (even in the original) is virtually identical to “do good to all men, but especially to those of the household of faith” it becomes very difficult to maintain that we believers are being told to do good EXCLUSIVELY to fellow believers!
This is what I meant about being blinded to the magnificence of the forest because of an exceedingly myopic examination of individual trees. When you take a step back, you can take in the whole picture, and gain a far more accurate assessment of what the forest is like.
And when you add into this the super-clear study comparing scripture to scripture, showing that aionios virtually never means “never-ending” it all becomes even more clear. The word was translated into the english as “never-ending” because of the mindset that became predominant from the time of Augustine. It should also be a hint when any objective study of the early church proves that the predominant view before Augustine was that the fires of judgment for unbelievers were refining fires meant to ultimately restore the soul.
But after all these centuries of misinterpretation and mistranslation, it seems the Torturer God is considered necessary and essential, and even, dare I say it: good.
So much I’d like to respond to, but I leave it with this question: Mike, does God desire that people obey his commands?
Dan this is a question you keep repeating. You seem to imagine it is some kind of “gotcha” question, because you think it thwarts the possibility of interpreting the scripture that says “God desires all to be saved” as being something he will eventually accomplish.
But it does no such thing, and is yet another example of you focusing on a single tree — nay, a single branch of a tree — and missing the beauty and balance of the forest as a whole.
In my last post I quoted about 7 different scriptures that —especially taken together — support the concept that God is working to redeem all things (including all people) eventually, through his refining fires. I did not reference the one about God desiring all to be saved. I did that for a reason!
Yet you come right back to this form of argument. And it really is not a slam dunk for your side of the argument; in fact, it adds nothing. If one says that, “yes, God wants all his creatures to obey his commands,” the question of whether he will accomplish such an outcome in all souls eventually is not answered by your attempt at a logical argument!
For example, God wants ME, Lord High Heretic of SpareOom, to obey all his commands. But so I? No. Not now. But if we can believe the many, many promises in scripture — and can also believe one such as I am redeemed or will be redeemed in Christ — then it is clear that there will come a time when I will. Or at least, a time when his desires will be so written in my heart that I won’t even desire that which is contrary to the will of God.
Sincerely
Michael, LHH
It does not “thwart the possibility”, but it does demonstrate that isn’t the only possible reading of that text.
On the contrary, it demonstrates that you (and the book) have an incomplete view of the forest. The book deliberately chooses the KJV reading of 1 Tim 2:4 that God “will that all be saved”, and justifies it (in the section you unnecessarily–in that I’d read, understood, and directly responded to it in the post you were replying to–quoted in full) by quoting scripture to the effect that God does whatever he desires, so therefore the distinction makes no difference. But in so saying, the book (and you) misses a critical point, and that is that there’s demonstrably a sense in which God’s will is not done. And having demonstrated that (which I spent my post of 21 Dec doing), it is further shown that the author of the book is either dishonest (in that he knows this distinction but hopes the reader doesn’t), incompetent (in that he can’t tell the difference either), or both.
You are focusing on “eventually” to the exclusion of the here and now, when both are important. When you and I sin today, God’s (moral) will is not being fulfilled today. Our subsequent sanctification and glorification, wondrous as those are, do not change the fact that we sinned today.
Some of these I’ve already addressed, others not yet. It’s easy for you to quote a handful of phrases without bothering to explain their context or meaning. To address them in depth takes more time, and much as it might seem otherwise, keeping up this discussion isn’t the only thing I have to do. So I responded with a simple question–one which you have yet to answer.
Hopefully that reason is that you recognize that that passage simply doesn’t say what the book says it says.