The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Not My Children / Two Separate People

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#41

Lots of Rom 9 coming up, so I’ll do some briefer entries first:

True enough, in the sense of sonship being discussed (v.15, that of son-placement, the raising to inheritance of those who are naturally children), but hardly an exclusively non-porous division, since none of us start out as sons in that sense (not being maturely responsible enough to be regarded as ready to enjoy the full rights of sonship, until which we have the status of slaves), whereas all of us start out as sons in the other far more primary sense: we have spirits given to us by the Father of Spirits, and only by His continual self-sacrificial action do we continue to exist. It is because of the far more primary sense of sonship in which we all start out, that we have any hope of being raised to authoritative sonship: if we are children, then also heirs of God and fellow heirs of Christ, but only if we cooperate with Him by suffering with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him (8:17). Far from being an exclusive salvation from sin, all creation eagerly waits and anxiously longs for the revealing of the sons of God, having been subjected to vanity in hope that the creation itself will also be set from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God (8:19-22), which is itself similar to how even we who have the firstfruits of the Spirit groan within ourselves waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, which is the resurrection of the body (8:23).

It should in any case be sufficiently obvious that the creation cannot be delivered from bondage of corruption into the glory of the children of God, if some of God’s corrupted children, made in His image, are annihilated, much less if some are hopelessly ever after fixed in corruption!

Taking hold of the seed of Abraham cannot only refer to Abraham’s descendants after the flesh (an exclusion which is denied elsewhere in the scriptures), so must refer to the spiritual seed of Abraham (and not to Christ specifically, although He is also known as “the seed of Abraham”, since Christ is the one doing the action). And since no one (not even Abraham!) starts off as being spiritually the seed of Abraham, but rather God can even raise sons of Abraham up out of the stones as He chooses, the category cannot be any simple reference to an exclusive group elected by God to salvation from sin.

#42

However, Paul started off with concern (one way or another, itself a prior topic) for “my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” whom he directly affirmed “are Israelites” not merely according to the flesh but also “to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the (temple) service and the promises, whose (promises etc.) are the fathers and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all God, blessed into the ages, Amen!” In other words, the same Israel by flesh who are not yet spiritual Israel, who are still stumbling over the stumbling stone, still have the promises! This is Paul’s immediate consolation for his unceasing grief over his kinsmen according to the flesh who are not spiritual Israel (as indeed none of us are to begin with, thanks to sin).

It is in this context (vv.1-5) that Paul goes on to declare and discuss why the Word of God has not failed in regard to them. Their apostasy is explained according to the flesh but their salvation was never intended to be according to the flesh but rather according to the promises: and they are included in the promises! If only the children of the flesh could be inheritors, the scope of salvation would be limited to the descendants of Abraham by the flesh, and then restricted further to descendants of Isaac and descendants of Jacob by the flesh. But since it is rather the children of the promise who are inheritors, then (because of the scope of the promise to Abraham) anyone can be inheritors–including those descendants of the flesh who are currently stumbling over the stumbling stone, for they are the first of people to be included in the promises of God.

Paul quotes from Gen 21:12, “through Isaac your descendents will be named”, which includes Esau as well as Jacob, thus also includes “spiritual Esau” as well as “spiritual Jacob”. This is why Paul can be reassure himself, despite his unceasing grief for them, that to them still belongs the adoption as sons, and the promises, and the glory and the covenants, which being of God shall not fail.

(The covenant made by God with Abraham regarding Abraham’s descendents was made by God alone, Who ensured Abraham would not be able to participate in the covenant ritual (Gen 15); thus Abraham’s descendents, even if they break the covenant and are punished for it, cannot nullify it. It is the Mosiac covenant which is broken and replaced by the superior covenant written in the hearts later–although the end result demonstrates that even breaking this covenant isn’t hopeless!)

This is also why Isaac could be inspired to bless Esau (and thus Esau’s descendants Edom) in Jacob, and why God can promise that Esau’s descendants will serve Jacob’s. Salvation for Esau and his descendants was never predicated on the right of flesh (or Esau would have been included in God’s inheritance through Isaac per 9:7 – but most of us would not, including every non-Jewish Calvinist who has ever lived!), but on the right of God’s promise. Just as God promised Abraham that Sarah would have a son, God promised that Abraham’s descendants would number more than the stars of heaven regardless of the line of descent through which the agent of that promise (God Himself Incarnate) explicitly came, which is why God could promise to protect Ishmael and could promise to bless Esau.

God chooses Jacob instead of Esau so that God’s purposes might stand, not because of works (God’s choice preceded the evil deeds of both brothers) but because of Him Who calls. However, St. Paul goes out of his way to indicate the end result of Esau being hated: “it was said to her (Rebekah/Rebecca, mother of both twins), ‘The older will serve the younger’”. This fits entirely with Jacob’s own prophecy that Esau shall still be blessed in Jacob (which Esau, rightly furious at Jacob’s satanic trickery, wrongly rejected out of a lack of faith in God, selfishly holding a murderous grudge over loss of his birthright–until later when he makes peace with Jacob!) Paul also thereby ties a meaning of ultimate reconciliation to his citation of the coming destruction of the land of Edom via Malachi 1:2f. As the land of Edom will eventually be healed and even be a highway for the righteous to pass through on the way to Jerusalem; and as Esau eventually reconciled with Jacob; so Esau’s descendents shall eventually reconcile with Jacob’s descendents, and be blessed thanks to the blessing of Jacob (specifically that Jacob not Esau should be the line of descent to the Messiah), thanks to God.

#43

The verses cited by Paul are not about contrasting Moses to Pharaoh, but about promising that God will raise up even Pharaoh to be a witness to the nations despite Pharaoh’s own willful obstinacy (which he persisted in, between times when God was hardening his heart); and about God emphasizing His mercy and compassion in His self-existent revelation (to which His promise not to let the guilty go free is subordinate).

It was because of that verse about Pharaoh, that rabbis subsequently couldn’t believe he had actually been killed off permanently while fording the Reed Sea, and so suggested various theories about God raising him from the dead afterward to serve as His evangelist. One such theory was that he was raised on the Sinai side of the Sea, humbly followed Israel up the eastern side of the Jordan in anonymity, became disgusted with their infidelity so continued north, where by God’s gracious calling and power he eventually became king of Ninevah — thus explaining why the king of that city was so quickly willing to lead them to repentance at the ridiculously minimal and hostile preaching of Jonah! The moral of that version of the story being this, that salvation is not up to the man who wills (Pharaoh the rebel pagan leader) nor the man who runs (Jonah the rebel Jewish prophet and evangelist!) but God Who has mercy.

Whether Paul had that particular rabbinic theory in mind I can’t prove, but the context indicates he wasn’t trotting out Pharaoh as an example of someone being hopelessly punished, although certainly as someone chosen to be a vessel for pouring out wrath.

“Vessels of X” in scripture are demonstrably intended to pour out X upon something or someone. In that context, some people are made to pour out wrath and others are made to pour out mercy. The most relevant example being the bowls brimming with and pouring out God’s {thumos} (though not the same term here) in Rev 15-16.

Paul as Saul was certainly among those who had been made to pour out wrath, once upon a time. Moreover, Paul certainly includes himself as a former child of wrath (same term as in Rom 9) by nature, in Eph 2:3. Considering the extremity of his description of such children (into hyperbole?), I do not see any feasible way these cannot be the same class as the vessels of wrath in Rom 9.

The two classes of vessel are consequently not watertight (so to speak); God saves people from one class into the other class, and makes use of both in His purposes.

Otherwise Paul would not have been able to use the term {makrothumia} explicitly about them at 9:22, which everywhere else in scripture when referring to God indisputably indicates God’s intention to save the objects of His “longsuffering”. To deny that it means God intends for the vessels of wrath to be saved, at the very least undercuts any assurance of God’s {makrothumia} in regard to ourselves, if indeed we think God has any for us at all.

#44

Which certainly doesn’t mean that the two classes are impermeable; much the opposite! 2 Cor 6 could not possibly therefore be saying talking about people in the dark whom God refuses to save from their sins. On the contrary, one of the scripture references used by St. Paul here is the promise of God in Hosea that once rebel Israel stops rebelling God will dwell among them and they will be people of God again.

(An extended argument could also be made that the beginning of 2 Cor 6 testifies not only to all things being gathered finally under Christ in loyalty, and even in referential context to post-mortem salvation, but even also as a warning against non-universalism! For sake of relative brevity though I’ll skip over that.)

Hardly a position exclusive to Calvinism; even universalists can agree with that. (Some of us even warn non-universalists about preaching less than the full gospel of salvation. :wink: ) Paul himself once worse than proclaimed a different gospel, so in any case he cannot be talking about an invincibly impermeable group who has no hope in God of salvation.

Galatians 4:1-7, not incidentally, is where Paul talks explicitly about adoption NOT being adoption of those who aren’t already children, but adoption of those who are naturally children. On the contrary, he denounces those who shut out others even so the others may seek the ones who shut them out! v.17 When we mature we are son-placed by the authority of the father into our inheritance; until we mature we remain slaves, though still children of the father.

Declared (Matt 7:22-23) exactly once (in this phraseology) by Jesus to people who thought they had every reason to believe they were among His elect (prophecying, casting out demons, performing many miracles in His name, thus empowered by Him to do so, and who even know to give Him the double “Lord Lord” “ADNY YHWH” reserved for God Most High); so not exactly the best verse for someone who thinks they are elect to quote as evidence of an invincibly hopeless non-elect!

Fortunately, Christ can also say something even stronger to someone with even stronger credentials than that, whom even Calvinists agree Christ intends to save from his sins: “You get behind Me, Satan!”

Considering that Paul explicitly classifies himself and his Christian Ephesian congregation in the same verses as having once been among those sons of disobedience and children of wrath, this is certainly not evidence for a totally separate class of hopelessly non-elected people. On the contrary, their salvation from being sons of disobedience is part of what Paul is talking about when he says they are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus!

This couldn’t mean that pagans are classed among the non-elect, since if that was true God would not even try to save any pagans from their sins! In context it’s a comparison of personal expectations about what comes after death: pagans themselves don’t hope for anything better and so grieve, but Christians at least have hope for themselves and so shouldn’t grieve, since (among other things) that’s a bad witness to the pagans!

Moreover, Calvinists and Arminians grieve over lost ones who have died, having no hope for them, so if the context is going to be ignored this ought to be testimony in favor of Christian universalism and a warning that hopelessness for those who died pagan is itself pagan!

But they had been (1:9), even though they no longer are. Again, not an impermeable separation of groups.

1 Thess 5:3 also happens to be one of those places where Paul uses the term “whole-ruination” (1 Cor 5:5 being the other) in an explicitly hopeful way for those being wholly ruined in the day of the Lord to come. Which along with some referential contexts weighs heavily against Paul meaning that same term to be hopeless punishment at 2 Thess 1:6-10.

Even Christian universalists can agree with that; and Arminians would agree with Calvs that the punishment and destruction is hopeless. It does not involve a specially distinct group of persons whom God never intends to save from their sins.

In fact hard Arminians would point to 2:20 as evidence that even people who have escaped such defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, can again be entangled and overcome, their latter state being worse than their first!–for it would have been better for them not o have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, turned away from the holy commandment given to them.

(Universalists meanwhile might go on to recall that Christ denounced people as sinning against the Holy Spirit in opposing as not of God His salvation of those whose latter state is worse than their first–same phraseology in Greek. So that category is also not impervious to being saved by Christ, and we tread hard on the worst of all sins in claiming otherwise.)

#45

I recall some of all of 1 John 2 saying that if anyone sins, Jesus Christ the Advocate is not only the propitiation for our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world. Definitely no impermeable division there. (On the contrary, “The one who says he is in the light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now”!)

Moreover, 1 John 3:8, “The one who practices sin is of the devil, for the devil sins from the beginning. The Son of God appeared [or manifested] for this purposes, that He may destroy the works of the devil.” By context the work of the devil is the practicing of sin. (e.g. “The children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.” v.10.) We all however were children of the devil in that sense, and in some sense we thus remain until we become perfectly righteous as God is righteous–nothing less than that! (“Little children, let no one deceive you: the one who practices righteousness is righteous just as He [God] is righteous!” v.7) If sin is not eventually completely destroyed, so that no one is doing unrighteousness anymore, then a chief purpose of God in the Incarnation and Passion has been finally and ultimately frustrated, whether by God’s own decree or (worse??) by Satan or other created sinners doing works of unrighteousness stronger than God’s salvation!

This must involve either annihilation of sinners without repentance, or universal salvation of sinners from sin. But to destroy the works of even the devil himself is not necessarily to destroy the person of even the devil himself, or else we all would be annihilated instead of saved from our sins. The question either remains open or, by this testimony, at least slightly in favor of final salvation (not annihilation) of sinners.

Pretty much none of Jude talks about a separate class of persons whom God never intended to save from sin. On the contrary, Christians are exhorted (v.22-23) to have mercy on some who are doubting, save others, and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh. Some of those on whom we are to pour mercy (being vessels of mercy!) were indeed marked out by God for condemnation long beforehand (i.e. written about, prophesied that they would come), but we’re still supposed to have an attitude of mercy toward them. Whereas we shouldn’t have an attitude of mercy toward the Calvinistic non-elect. If we don’t have an attitude of mercy toward someone, though, we’re vessels of destruction.

(Also, Jude is talking about an imprisonment which the prophet Isaiah says will end in the release of those being so punished, Isaiah 24:21-22 and its contexts, especially in regard to how St. Paul directly refers to the contexts of those verses in 1 Cor 15: the point in question being what it means for the rebel angels and kings of the earth who are gathered into the dungeon and confined in prison to be “visited” after many days.)

People can be added back into the Book of Life (Malachi 3:16), as well as blotted out (Rev 3:5), so the categories are again not impermeable. (This is aside from the question of whether being refined night and day into the eons of the eons is a hopeless punishment.)

Moreove, Malachi’s prophecy was about the forthcoming punishment of God (in the day of the Lord to come) being very and repeatedly emphasized as intended for hopeful refining. So in effect, the intended result of the day of judgment will be to add names back to the book, just as God added in the names of penitent rebels in Malachi’s own day. Malachi testifies that it can be done; and, in effect, that it will be done.

Considering that Christ exhorted sinners earlier in RevJohn to conquer and come out of their sins, this is once again not a statement of an impermeably hopeless group.

Moreover, in a flashforward revelation at RevJohn 15, John sees those who have overcome their sins coming out from the glassy sea of fire and out from the beast and out from the mark and the number of the name of the beast. This among other things indicates that those who go into the lake of fire for having the mark of the beast, aren’t permanently stuck there, but can repent and leave behind their sins and idolatries.

#46

Note to myself: I have a misprint in the second post of my reply – there is no Galatians 21! :laughing: I’ll have to double-check my notes tomorrow to be sure of the fix, but I probably meant Gal 4 (although I’ll try to figure out why I typed 21, as it may indicate I had something else on my mind…)

Speaking of the same entry, I should probably spell out the connections in that large block of Isaiah to Israel as a rebel wife divorced for slaying her husband (paralleled thus with Babylon a couple chapters earlier, who makes Satanic-level claims and refuses to regard herself as a widow).

#47

Jason went to town and nearly wrote a book :smiley:

#48

That’s brilliant Jason :smiley:

#49

I dunno, a typically rushed and slipshod piece of work from Jason :smiley: .

Seriously Mr Pratt, you are a scholar and a gentleman. I take my hat off to you.

J

#50

Having gotten to the office this morning, I’ve now fixed the relevant paragraph from the 2nd post: the NASB (which was one of my reference tools) marks the start of a new paragraph at verse 21 by bolding the number, and that’s surely where a neuron in my brain misfired, picking up that number as the “chapter” citation. (This transcription phenomenon happens often enough even with professional scribes that textual critics have an obscure Greek name for it! :laughing: …which… um… I’ve forgotten. :wink: )

Also, I cannot reconstruct how it happened, but I wrongly called Paul’s citation Isaiah 51, when I meant 54. So that’s fixed.

It would take a long time to go into detail about how the thematic and narrative threads add up (insofar as there’s a narrative, since Isaiah keeps shifting back and forth in reporting his visions, or God keeps shifting his visions back and forth), but I’ve added a few brief clarifying details to the paragraph. The gist is that Israel is represented as (among other things) a faithless wife divorced by God (maybe even to be mystically paralleled with Babylon in Isaiah 47, a Satanic level sinner who claims ontological self-sufficiency due only to God, and who refuses to acknowledge that she is a widow), who slew the Suffering Servant (to be identified one way or another with her husband), and who after being punished and rejected by God for a moment shall be saved everlastingly by Him.

#51

and that’s surely where a neuron in my brain misfired,

JP, I think they call it a “Brain Fart”.

#52

^^ Yeah I fixed some other brainfarts this morning. :wink:

#53

Monergistically? Don’t the scriptures teach synergism?

Working together with Him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. (2 Corinthians 6:1 ESV)

“Working together”=“synergountes”— the word from which we get “synergism.”

#54

Padion, if anyone knew for sure if Synergism was absolute, there wouldn’t be such a debate raging on. Is it the chicken or the egg or is it both?

#55

Strictly speaking, Paul was already born again when he was working together with God to appeal to the Corinthians there. Calvinists don’t usually deny synergism once God empowers a person, unless they’re going with hard determinism maybe.

The salient doctrinal point is whether God alone acts to energize a person toward salvation to begin with. And that’s something even Arms (as well as we Kaths, whether we lean toward Calv or Arm otherwise) can agree with: we don’t seek salvation first and then-or-thus convince God to ask to save us, God seeks us and our salvation first.

Having said that, I’m fuzzy how exactly anyone is supposed to receive the grace of God in vain if Calvinism is true. :wink: So there’s that.

(Edited to add: well, I suppose those whom God acts to save could temporarily receive it in vain, with problems and punishments for doing so, as long as it is not hopelessly in vain. Kaths can agree with that, too; and even Arms to some extent, although they’d have a vain finality.)

#56

Hi auggy, You cannot have both synergism and monergism because both would be synergism.

#57

I assume synergism argues both. Monergism argues which came first, Synergism argues they’re both working together.

Am I wrong about that.

#58

That is correct. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

#59

I think you disagree with me because, If I’ve read you right, you’re a synergist.

I simply am saying that if the debate was as clear and cut as some make it out to be, then there wouldn’t be much of a debate among good and fair minded people. That was all I really meant.

#60

Actually, Auggie, there often is hot debate, even when the facts of matter are clearly stated in scripture. Some are unwilling to accept those facts.

“Convince a man against his will, and he’s of the same opinion still.”