Recently, a friend asked me to look at a blog post and let him know what I think about it. This post might not make much sense by itself, because it’s my response to that article. Please take note: I haven’t written this to demean the author, but to discuss the idea of universalism with my friend. It’s too long to post on Facebook, and someone else might benefit from reading it, so I share it with you here. I appreciate the author’s desire to know the truth, and his systematic approach to his beliefs. I wish more people – Christians and non-Christians alike – would do the same. My disagreement isn’t with him, but with the conclusions of his article. Note as well that I’m only addressing the first of a series of posts. If someone asks, I may address the rest… but when the foundation of an argument has been removed, the whole thing falls down. I believe that the points raised here are sufficient.
To see if the author’s position is flawed, let’s look at his assumptions. The primary assumption in the article is that, because God is sovereign, He always gets what He wants…and, because He wants everyone to be saved, everyone will be saved. Let’s take a closer look.
First, the Bible does say that God wants everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). Second, every Christian I know would say that God is certainly sovereign. That’s found throughout Scripture. So, why would I disagree with the author’s conclusion? Simple: he assumes that God’s sovereignty gives Him everything He wants. I’m not convinced.
It’s interesting that while the author claims that Calvinism is depraved, he duplicates their error. He claims that Calvinism’s problem is the combination of total depravity and unconditional election, but it’s really rooted in the same problem we’re talking about here: a misunderstanding of sovereignty. Calvinism teaches that God predestines some for Heaven and some for Hell and, because He is sovereign, we play no part in our own salvation. If we did, we could thwart God’s will… making us more powerful than God. That’s known in Calvinism as “irresistible grace.” The author teaches that God predestines everyone to be saved and, because of His sovereignty, everybody will be saved. That’s the textbook definition of irresistible grace… the author simply includes everyone, while Calvinists only include some. Both must ignore much of the New Testament to make their claims.
Let’s look at his use of THELO. He cites Thayer’s (the go-to Greek lexicon) to support his claim that THELO indicates God’s resolve and determination that all should be saved. Unfortunately, he’s only telling part of the story. There’s only ONE definition in Thayer’s: “to will, have in mind, intend.” That one definition has several shades of meaning:
- to be resolved or determined, to purpose
- to desire, to wish
- to love
- to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
- to take delight in, have pleasure
He cites Thayer, but doesn’t account for ALL of Thayer. I’m not saying that he’s being dishonest, but it does seem that he’s cherry-picking. Did Paul, when writing 1 Timothy 2, mean that God would be delighted (#4) if everyone were saved? Did he mean that God likes (#3) to save people? These definitions, without the context in which they were written, carry equal weight. In this case, the context of 1 Timothy 2 actually works against the author. Paul tells Timothy that believers should live their lives in specific ways. Why? Because God wants everyone to be saved. If everyone is going to be saved anyway, there’s no connection between the activities of Christians and the fate of unbelievers. That Paul wrote this passage presumes that it needed to be written.
Let’s look at the section where he addresses the word “all.” For the sake of discussion, let’s grant his point: that “all” literally means “every single person.” He points out the universality of the word with regard to being made alive, being reconciled to God, being justified, being offered mercy, and so on. He also (rightly) says that the subset is part of the larger group. If we’re granting his definition of “all,” and granting that the subset is part of the whole, why would we still disagree with his conclusion? Simple: none of those things are salvation.
1 Corinthians 15 doesn’t say that all will be saved. It says that all will be resurrected. The entire chapter, as one can see by actually reading it, is designed to convince the reader that Jesus was resurrected, and that everyone else will be resurrected as well. In fact, this passage also undermines the author’s claim. Verse 2 says that we are saved by the Gospel IF we hold firmly to it. Otherwise, we have believed in vain. If Paul believed that everyone would be saved, there would be no “if.” Verse 18 says that if there’s no resurrection, then “those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.” If Paul believed that everyone would be saved, he would not write that ANYBODY could be lost. Verse 23 refers to Jesus’ second coming, and of those who ‘belong to Him’. Since some will NOT belong to Him, some will apparently not be saved.
The author then cites Romans 5, Romans 11, 1 Timothy 4:10, and 1 John 2:2, noting the use of “all” in each. The assumption in every case is that the passages indicate that all will be saved… but is that what Scripture, as a whole, teaches? No, it’s not. One of the best-known verses in the New Testament says that ‘the wages of sin is death’ (Romans 6:23). A lesser-known verse says that one (Jesus) died for all, therefore all died (2 Corinthians 5:14). Jesus died to take our place… that is, He died the death we deserved. Does that mean that, because the penalty for sin has been paid, everybody goes to Heaven? Look at the whole passage:
If we are “out of our mind,” as some say, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. As God’s co-workers we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain. For he says,
“In the time of my favor I heard you,
and in the day of salvation I helped you.”
I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation.
The author cites Colossians 1, which says that God has reconciled to Himself “all things.” Paul wrote Colossians, and he wrote the above passage in 2 Corinthians. When you look at the two, it’s clear that while God reconciled “all things” to Himself, there’s something else that must occur: we must reconcile ourselves to Him as well. God’s grace was extended to everyone, but that grace can be received in vain. Note the meaning of “in vain”… that it does no good, and doesn’t fulfill its purpose. What are we talking about in this passage? How, through Jesus’ death, God reconciled us to Himself. This passage guts the author’s view as well as the Calvinist view, because it puts the final piece of the salvation puzzle in the hands of mankind. God has done the work of salvation by coming to Earth and dying for us, but WE MUST RESPOND or it’s all for nothing.
The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, expresses that mankind has both the freedom and the obligation to respond to God. From the call of the Old Testament prophets for the people to turn their hearts toward God to John the Baptist’s call to repent, our role in our own salvation is clear. Every mention of salvation in the New Testament becomes meaningless if the author, and the Calvinists, are right. Why write about turning our hearts toward God if salvation is only a matter of God forcing His will on us? If everyone will be saved, why encourage Christians to live lives worthy of respect that might lead to the salvation of another?
In Matthew 25, Jesus talks about the Ten Virgins, the Bags of Gold, and the Sheep and the Goats. In each section, He describes the day of His return in stark terms: some will get in, and some will be left out. There’s no indication at all that being excluded from God’s coming Kingdom is a temporary situation. The only way to find that in the text is to insert it yourself, because it’s not there. We could look at dozens of passages in which we are told to take responsibility for our salvation, and that not doing so is a grievous mistake. God, in His sovereignty, has not chosen to control us entirely. He gives us a measure of sovereignty, and expects us to use it to choose wisely.
Join me on Substack!
GOD IS GOOD
No. (just following the restriction of ‘one’ thought)
God did kinda obliterate Sodom and Gomorrah. Granted they weren’t nice people per se’, meteoric showers aren’t necessarily a nice response either, Dan. I’m not apt to argue whether the purpose of those actions were good or not, as that’s above my pay-grade spiritually, nor can I attest whether or not they’re experiencing paradise or Inferno, but as a human, I’m more apt to believe the latter – There’s always consequences for one’s actions, at least in my mind.
You could have mentioned the parable of the good shepherd, who seeks the one lost until he finds them. Or Isaiah 25, where God will take away the veil over all people, and wipe away the tears from all faces, it clearly is God’s desire, will to save all, and He says in Isaiah 46:10 He will do all of His pleasure. Nothing is too difficult for Him!
Greg:
In my response to that article, I could have mentioned a whole bunch of other passages. The question is not the number of passages, but the meaning of each. No, nothing is too difficult for God. The problem with the idea of universalism is that it simply contradicts a zillion passages. God will not save everyone. How do we know this? By reading ALL of Scripture, of course. Universalists (and others with false beliefs) tend to cherry-pick the verses they like, ignoring or glossing over the verses that would otherwise correct them.
The idea that God will save everyone provides some comfort, of course. We all want everything to turn out nicely, where we all win in the end, where everybody realizes the truth about God and reality, where everybody agrees that living as God intended really is the best way, and so on. The trouble with this idea is that it simply doesn’t match what God Himself has revealed to us in His Word. The offering of moral freedom necessarily includes the risk (or the knowledge, in God’s case) that our freedom may lead us where we should not go. When we turn a blind eye to part of the Scriptures and in favor of ideas we prefer, we substitute our ideas for God’s truth. That’s a bad place to be.
No, God will certainly not save everyone. I do wish that everyone would be saved, but the Bible is clear: some will be lost, and they will be lost forever. God wants everyone to be saved, but that doesn’t mean that everyone will be saved. God doesn’t want us to lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, be selfish, to take advantage of one another, and so on. We still do those things… not because God is NOT sovereign, but because He has decided to allow us the freedom to accept or reject His gracious offer of salvation. Those who don’t accept this offer won’t be taken into His presence for all eternity against their will.
In the midst of returning from a Christian conference as I write this, I’m struck by the level of argumentation over incalculable and infinitely large things religious that cannot be empirically proven; to the point that the manmade, largely philosophical constructs associated with the concept of an all-knowing God, which by definition cannot be scientifically proven, are actually pointless. Argue if you will but humankind is too small too comprehend the nature of God.
Blaine:
Thanks for writing. We agree that humankind is too small to comprehend the nature of God. At the same time, God has chosen to reveal to us some things about Himself. Imperfect and limited as we are, we may not fully understand any of it… but that doesn’t mean that God’s communication isn’t fruitful. To suggest that would be to diminish even the concept of God, wouldn’t it?
I’m curious: which part(s) of what I wrote do you disagree with? I’m more than willing to be corrected.
There are many verses that state God’s intenion to save all, and it may seem like too much trouble to look at them all it is our responsibility before God to go through the trouble of doing so. On the contrary, there is only one single verse in the entire Bible that “seems” to warn of “eternal punishment”, but this one single place, which contradicts a lot of verses to the contrary, is a mistranslation. The word “aion” refers to an age or indefinite time period. Aionios, the word used in Mat 25:46 is an adjective form of “aion”. It does not mean eternal.And the word translated as “punishment” was originally translated as “pruning”. God knows exactly how to get what He wants, He can work in the afterlife or whenever He wants. Time is no obstacle to God getting what He wants, and He clearly wants everyone to be safely and happily with Him.
Greg:
Thank you for writing! I hope you don’t mind if I take exception to some of your claims.
Now, let’s take a very serious, scholarly look at your claim about the Greek word AIONIOS. The last thing you should do is take my word for what it means. I’m no Greek scholar. Of course, the last thing I – or any reader who sees your comment – should do is take your word for it, too. Here’s a list of accepted Koine Greek lexicons and the definitions they supply for AIONIOS.
BDAG (the gold standard for New Testament Greek lexicography): 1) relating to a period of time extending far into the past, long ages ago… as found in Romans 16:25, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2. 2) relating to time without boundaries or interruption, eternal… as found in Romans 16:26 and Hebrews 9:14. 3) relating to a period of unending duration, permanent, lasting… as found in Luke 16:9, 2 Corinthians 5:1, and Hebrews 5:9.
Thayer’s: 1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be. 2) without beginning. 3) without end, never to cease, everlasting.
LSJ (the classical Greek authority): lasting for an age (AION II), perpetual, eternal (but distinguished from AIDIOS)… the LSJ notes it as “lasting for an age” with perpetual and eternal as extended meanings.
Strong’s: 1) perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well). 2) eternal, for ever, everlasting.
Friberg: 1) eternal, everlasting… its opposite is PROSKAIROS (temporary, transitory) 2) of God without beginning or end, eternal (Romans 16:26). 3) without beginning (Romans 16:25) without end, everlasting (2 Corinthians 5:1)
Louw-Nida: 1. pertaining to an unlimited duration of time—eternal. Examples: “be thrown into the eternal fire” (Matthew 18:8); “of the eternal God” (Romans 16:26). Louw-Nida notes the most frequent use in the NT is with ZOE (life).
Zodhiates: eternal, perpetual, belonging to the AION, to time in its duration, constant, abiding. When referring to eternal life, it means the life which is God’s, and hence it is not affected by the limitations of time. AIONIOS is especially predicated on the saving blessings of divine revelation, denoting those things which are not transitory.
Abbott-Smith: age-long.
Bill Mounce: Gloss: eternal, long ago. Definition: eternal, everlasting, or indeterminate as to duration.
AIONIOS isn’t a common word in classical sources, but some classical sources explain it as time (short or long) in unbroken duration, as in the lifetime of a man, or lasting for a long, indefinite period of time, and so on.
Here’s the reality: scholars have long argued about the appropriate use of AIONIOS. Obviously, claims about its usage must rely on each individual context. So what should we do when we wonder what Jesus meant in Matthew 25:46? First, we should actually LOOK AT the verse: Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. Obviously, the word AIONIOS appears twice here. If you want to claim that the goats will have temporary punishment (or pruning), then you must also claim that the reward that the sheep will receive is also temporary. That most clearly DOES NOT FIT THE CONTEXT… right?
Right. In other words, no… God will not save everyone. To believe this, one must either twist or ignore clear passages of Scripture. Let’s avoid that.