Let me put my cards on the table and say that I have over the years been increasingly open to what historically has been called “The Greater Hope” but in the process I must admit that I have felt increasingly uneasy calling myself an “Evangelical” or even a “Protestant” because these rather old-fashioned and rather narrow Tribal self-identifications are actually very unbiblical and contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. See Corinthians 3:21-22 .
A sub-theme running through all the recent criticisms of Rob Bell is basically an angry demand to determine “Is he one of US or not?”
Once the more zealous heresy hunters are satisfied that Bell is NOT ‘One of Us”, and come to a consensus on that… the game will be over and Bell will be safely quarantined outside the Camp with the Liberals or the Catholics.
This is my story:
I was for many years a 5 point TULIP Calvinist (having given my life to Christ at L’abri in 1967) but gradually began to see things differently a number of years ago, not only through reading some of the ancient Church Fathers but also having spent 5 years within the Russian Orthodox Church. I found myself growing into a different perspective.
Once that new perspective became more clear to me I could that the Augustinian-Calvinistic theological scheme distorts biblical truth and attempts to make intellectually and doctrinally clear areas which in the bible are in reality (and I believe by divine intention) shrouded in mystery and paradox.
One of the fruits of my changed perspective was that I could see more clearly that when Calvinists speak of ‘standing for the truth’ and ‘defending the truth’ what they actually mean is that they are defending the interpretation of the bible that their systematic doctrinal scheme leads them to.
But I think the biblical evidence that God will ultimately be successful in saving sinners and transforming the world through Christ is in fact a lot stronger than many Evangelicals are making out and a whole lot stronger than the Augustinian-Calvinist scheme could possibly allow. Calvinists are compelled to read the biblical text in a certain kind of way, in ways consent within their systematic theology. So it is usually (almost always) their doctrinal system they are defending, not the truth of the Word of God itself. Of course any Calvinist worth his or her salt will angrily deny this and will see difference between the two.
From the historic Evangelical point of view either God is just not powerful or wise enough to bring his Plan to a successful conclusion and our free will can ‘trump’ God’s will for us…
…OR, following the more austere Augustine/Calvin line, you can resort to the totally unbiblical theory of a ‘limited atonement’ and a ‘double predestination’ which involves, the idea of of a predetermined group of people called the ‘reprobate’. According to Calvinism God has creating a whole class of people ‘before the creation of the world’ with the express intention of damning and torturing them forever to display has wrath and anger against sin. This is the purpose for which He has created them.
I find both these options or ‘interpretations’ very unbiblical.
I just do not recognise this to be the God of the Bible nor do I see the real Gospel in these kinds of speculation or in these specific doctrinal theories.
Paul says in no uncertain terms on Corin 15:21-22
21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam ALL die, so in Christ ALL will be made alive.
Also in II Peter 3:9: “The Lord . . . is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance”;
I Timothy 2:4: God “desires ALL men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”;
Romans 11:32: “For God has imprisoned ALL in disobedience so that he may be merciful to ALL”;
and in the OT
Ezekiel 33:11: “As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn away from his way and live . . …”
All of these texts seem do suggest that God sincerely wants to achieve the reconciliation of all sinners and all things to Himself, and that His failure to achieve that end would be, in some important sense, a tragic defeat for God Himself and an indication that He was just not wise or powerful enough to carry through his plan of ultimate redemption. I do not recognise the God of the Bible in that view either.
There are three core statements of the bible which just cannot all be true…or reconciled together within the Evangelical world-view. Following Tom Talbott here:
(1) It is God’s redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners to himself;
(2) It is within God’s power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;
(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether.
If this is indeed an inconsistent set of propositions (asTom Talbott points out), as I also believe it is, then at least one of these propositions is false.
Calvinists reject proposition (1); Arminians reject proposition (2); and universalists reject proposition (3).
But in fact we can also find all kinds of support, both direct and explicit as well as indirect and implicit in the whole sweep of the Bible narrative for each of the three propositions.
This I think is the ‘deep’ background of the present discussion at least insofar as it seeks to be a respectful and responsible discussion.
But I am aware that giving up the label and tribal identification of being a card-carrying Protestant - Calvinist or Arminian or Universalist Evangelical may be just a step too far outside many peoples comfort zones.
Love in Jesus,
Bill Gordon
I may have to try that…
I like “Christian Reconciliationist” based on II Cor. 5:18-21 myself.
