Blogger and pub theologian Bryan Berghoef recently had a
series of posts on his site Musings Of A
Pub Theologian about atonement, the foundational Christian belief that
Jesus’ death and resurrection secured the reconciliation of humanity to
God. This got me thinking again about
the larger picture of Christian soteriology and how the various theories of
salvation within the protestant Christian ethos reveal the nature of God and
reflect on his character.
New Testament scripture has a lot to say about the
relationship between God and man, God’s plans and purposes, and the ultimate destiny
of humanity. But since the Bible isn’t a
textbook with clear and precise information but rather a collection of writings
gathered over a very long period of time, Christian denominations across the
world (approximately 30,000 denominations and sects) emphasize different
concepts and prioritize various ideas as seen from a number of perspectives. Yet, when the whole of the New Testament
narrative concerning God’s salvific purpose is distilled to its essence, three
propositions emerge:
Proposition #1: It is God’s will – his plan and purpose - to
reconcile all of humanity to himself through Jesus.
Proposition #2: It is within God’s power to fulfill his will,
his plans and his purposes.
Proposition #3: Not all of humanity will be reconciled to God.
Some will be consigned to eternal
punishment without the possibility of release or redemption.
Each of these propositions appears to have support
in scripture. In support of proposition
#1 – that it is God’s will to reconcile all of humanity to himself through
Jesus - the following scriptures might
be noted:
“The
Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to
repentance.” – 2 Peter 3:9
"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God
our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge
of the truth." - 1 Tim
2:4-6
"For
as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive”. - 1 Cor. 15:22
Colossians
1:20. 19 “For in him [Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to
dwell, and through him to reconcile to
himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of
his cross. – Colossians 1: 19-20
"But
I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." John
12:32
In support of proposition #2 – that it is within God’s power
to fulfill his will, his desires and purposes - the following scriptures might be noted:
"He
doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of
the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"
(Dan. 4:35)
"The
Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, surely as I have thought, so shall it come to
pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand". Isaiah 14:24
"Declaring the end
from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done,
saying, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good
pleasure’;" Isaiah 46:10
"I
have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and
shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear,
surely shall say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength." - Isaiah 45:23-24
In support of proposition #3 – that some will be consigned
to eternal punishment - the
following scripture might be noted:
"These
will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
– Matt 25:46
The curious thing about these three propositions is that
although each appears to have support in scripture, they aren’t
consistent. Only two of the three
statements can be true. It isn’t
logically consistent to say that God desires and wills to reconcile all of
humanity (as proposition #1 asserts), that he has the power to fulfill his will
and purpose (as proposition #2 asserts) , and yet some among humanity will be
consigned to eternal punishment (as asserted in proposition #3). It is transparently obvious then that all
three propositions cannot be true. One
of these three ideas must be rejected in order for the other two propositions
to be valid.
And in fact, that is precisely what different Christian
groups have done. The tension between these three propositions can be seen in
competing doctrines among the various protestant denominations.
Let us suppose that proposition #1 and #3 are true and proposition
#2 is false. This is what
denominations like Methodists, Churches of Christ, Assemblies of God, most
Holiness denominations and others do.
Their reasoning, called Arminianism, goes something like this:
“It is God’s will
to reconcile all humanity to himself. He
doesn’t want anyone to spend eternity in hell and it is his sincere
desire that everyone should be saved.
The offer of salvation is available to everyone equally.” So, proposition #1 is true.
“Unfortunately, it is not within God’s power
to fulfill this desire because of man’s freewill. Even though God has chosen to save everyone, some
people decide to reject God’s saving grace and thereby go to hell. It is their freewill choice. God cannot
prevent this.” So, proposition #2 is false.
“Therefore not all of humanity will
be reconciled to God. This means that some people will spend eternity in hell.”
So, proposition #3 is true.
This approach places the emphasis on an all-loving God who is unable to fulfill his desires, in order that proposition #3 can remain true.
Or, we can suppose
that proposition #2 and proposition #3 are true and proposition #1 is false. This is what denominations like Southern
Baptists, Presbyterian and other Reformed churches do. Their reasoning, Calvinism, goes something
like this:
“It is not God’s plan to reconcile
all humanity. Sinful man is spiritually blind and incapable of approaching God. In order for at least some people to be
saved, God must choose to save them himself.
These people are chosen – or elected – to salvation freely by God’s grace and not because of anything they have
done. It is his will to reconcile those
that he has chosen but he has not chosen everyone.” So, proposition #1 is
false.
“It is within God’s power to
fulfill his will. In fact, God’s will is
irresistible and cannot be defeated.
Whatever he decides to do will come to pass. All of those he has willed and chosen to be
reconciled, without exception, will be reconciled.” So, proposition #2 is true.
“This means that
some people (those who are not chosen by God) will spend eternity in hell.” So,
proposition #3 is true.
This approach emphasizes the all-powerful will of a God whose love is limited in scope, in order that proposition #3 can remain true..
Lastly, we could suppose
that proposition #1 and #2 are true and proposition #3 is false. This
is what Christian Universalists believe.
Their reasoning goes something like this:
“It is God’s plan and purpose to
reconcile all humanity to himself. He
doesn’t will that anyone should spend eternity in hell and it is his choice
that everyone should be saved.
Therefore, the offer of salvation is available to everyone
equally.” So, proposition #1 is true
“It is within God’s power to
fulfill his will. In fact, God’s will is
irresistible and cannot be defeated.
Whatever he decides to do will come to pass. God’s plans and purposes cannot fail. All of
those he has willed and chosen to be reconciled, without exception, will be
reconciled.” So, proposition #2 is true.
“Since proposition #1 is true (God
has chosen to reconcile everyone) and proposition #2 is true (God’s plans
cannot fail and everyone that he has chosen to reconcile, without exception,
will be reconciled) it is inconsistent
and illogical for proposition #3 to be true. Therefore no one will spend
eternity in hell. Eventually, at some
point in the future ages, all people will ultimately be reconciled to God.” So, proposition #3 is false.
This approach places equal emphasis on God's all-loving nature and all-powerful will. Because God is all-loving and all-powerful, proposition #3 cannot remain unchallenged.
(Notice something
interesting? Christian Universalists
agree with the millions of Methodists, Church of Christ and others that
proposition #1 is true. Christian
Universalists also agree with the millions of Baptists, Presbyterians and other
Reformed churches that proposition #2 is true.)
Every Christian believer is faced with these three propositions,
only two of which can be true. The
implication of this is that scriptures which support the proposition you reject
will need to be “fudged” or de-emphasized or interpreted in a way that doesn't interfere with your doctrine. This
is what all Christian denominations do.
The question I pose is this: Since only two of these three propositions can be true, which two of the three propositions more clearly permeate scripture through-and-through? Which two of these three more accurately reflect the nature and character of an infinitely wise, infinitely just and infinitely good God? Proposition #1 implies that God is unlimited in his love, sincerely desiring the salvation of all mankind. This is an overwhelming theme of scripture. Proposition #2 implies that God is unlimited in power, able to accomplish whatever he desires. This is also an exceedingly strong biblical theme. Proposition #3, however, seems weak in relation to the other two, and open to various interpretations, and is found in texts that often contain parable, hyperbole, metaphor and symbolism.
In order for proposition #3 to be true at the expense of either propositions #1 or #2, the biblical warrant for everlasting punishment would need to be much stronger than the biblical theme of God’s unlimited love and God’s omnipotence. And that, I think, is a case that is not easy to make.
No comments:
Post a Comment