“I’m afraid that in the United States of America today the prevailing doctrine of justification is not justification by faith alone. It is not even justification by good works or by a combination of faith and works. The prevailing notion of justification in our culture today is justification by death. All one has to do to be received into the everlasting arms of God is to die.” (R.C. Sproul, Saved from What?)
Tag Archives: universalism
As we have been looking at “Ten Steps to Spirituality,” one particular verse merits a bit more attention from us. How are we to understand this verse which says, “For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.”
If taken in a literal sense, if God is “the Savior of all men,” then universalism seems to be taught here. But that would contradict all the other Pauline passages which teach that some will be eternally lost.
Another possibility is that “Savior of all men” is meant in a broad sense, but that He is the Savior of believers in a more particular and special sense. Some Arminian believers suggest that the text is teaching that Christ has paid the penalty for sin for every human being, that He is the potential Savior for those who believe.
One writer suggests that the word “all” has several nuances, depending on the context and usage. How did the Apostle use the term “all” (pas in Greek)? James White says that sometimes “all” means “many,” but “many” never means “all.” “All” denotes “all types” or “all kinds.” Paul writes in I Timothy 6:10 that money is the “root of all (pas) evil.” Is that really true? Was money the motivator in the Garden of Eden? Is money always the cause of murder? Do people commit adultery because they love money so much? Most modern translations render I Timothy 6:10 as “For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.”
The Apostle Paul had a specific ministry to the Gentiles, so perhaps the idea here is that He is the Savior to more than the Jews. He is the Savior of all men of every ethnic and cultural background [who believe]. Revelation 7:9 speaks of there being those whom God has redeemed from “every kindred, tribe, tongue, and race” before the Throne. Some would argue that Paul’s use of the word “world” may have the same meaning in some passages, that is, not everyone without exception, but the whole world of humans without distinction.
Our verse reads: “For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.” Let’s think about that term “especially.” The Greek word malista has the idea of “chiefly” or “most of all.” One translation suggests that Paul is saying that Jesus is the Savior of a specific subset of “all humanity”, that is, He’s the Savior of “believers.”
So,as one writer puts it, the text is saying: “We have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all types of men (as opposed to Israelites exclusively), that is (or, particularly) those who believe.”
Christ is the Savior to all — to uncircumcised Gentiles and every type of human on the planet. His salvation is fully effective only to those who believe have faith in Christ’s finished work.
Paul also says in I Timothy 2, “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.” (I Timothy 2:5-8).
Thank God for His Son, the Savior of all who believe!
[Thanks to Jim McClarty and his work found at: http://www.salvationbygrace.org/uc/sub/qaprint.aspx?qa=114&local=11a for some of this material.]
I’ve recently reviewed three books on eternal lostness for the Emmaus Journal. The review is found below. The book that really concerns me is Sharon Baker’s book Razing Hell. Please feel free to post your comments below.
Click on the following link for my review:
Thanks to all who have supported me in this publishing project, “Farewell, Rob Bell”: A Biblical Response to Love Wins. I especially appreciate the support of Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries. This book is now available through Amazon.com. There is also a Kindle version. Allow me to repeat the flyer below which shows the cover (masterfully done by Christian cartoonist Ron Wheeler):
God’s given me courage to send a copy to Bell’s elders at Mars Hill Bible Church. Please pray that some of them will read it and respond properly.
I’ve also sent a copy to Mark Galli of Christianity Today who says that Rob Bell and Love Wins are no litmus test of orthodoxy! He’s publishing a book entitled God Wins.
Discussion Questions: Why should we get in such a flap about a book on God’s love? What makes neo-universalism so dangerous?
Friends: I’ve been working hard the last few weeks to complete my response to Rob
Bell’s Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived (HarperOne, 2011). The book is finished and is being published through Amazon’s Create Space (print on demand). Not a particularly long book (70 pages or so), “Farewell, Rob Bell: A Biblical Response to Love Wins” deals with the primary questions Bell raises in his presentation of what I’ve been calling neo-universalism.
Didn’t he do a great job? I’m trying to keep the price down, so I’m charging only $10 (which includes shipping to the USA and Canada). Send a check or money order made out to me (Larry Dixon) + your address and I will ship your copy as soon as they come off the press! My address: 117 Norse Way, Columbia, SC 29229
Sorry for the commercial, but I believe I’ve put together a solid response to Bell which will be of help, especially to those who have not or do not intend to read Love Wins.
We began this three-part discussion by recognizing that there is a new challenge facing Evangelicals by a
group I’m calling the neo-universalists. Unlike classic universalists like Karl Barth, C.H. Dodd, John A.T. Robinson, and Nels F.S. Ferré, these neo-universalists are rather militant about their belief that God will (must) save all. God’s very greatness, says Rob Bell in Love Wins, depends on God’s getting what God wants — and He wants all to be saved.
Part of the neo-universalist argument is that Evangelicalism is stingy, teaching a fewness perspective in which only a limited number will be saved. The neo-universalists argue for endless opportunities after death to believe the gospel and mock the Evangelical perspective as “toxic” and as a “hijacking” of the Jesus story.
We suggested in Part 1 of this discussion that God is under no obligation to save any. And His greatness is true with or without man’s salvation.
We then noticed that Jesus Himself was asked a very specific question about how many would be saved in Luke 13. Let’s look at the whole passage:
22 Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23 Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”
He said to them, 24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’
“But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’
26 “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’
27 “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’
28 “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”
We made several observations as we began our study of this biblical text. To summarize those earlier points, we noticed that Jesus addresses His answer to the people, rather than to the individual who raised the question. And He immediately launches into an analogy about a narrow door, a house, and a houseowner.
We saw in verse 24 that Jesus challenges the people to “make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.” Salvation in Jesus’ analogy sounds difficult: the door is narrow, “every effort” is required to get into that house, and the many who try to enter (and won’t be able to) appear to present an obstacle to the ones Jesus commands to “make every effort to enter.”
1. Moving on in the text, we notice that the one who is to make every effort to enter is faced with a greater challenge. There is an owner of the house who may get up at any time and close the door! What?! Doesn’t God want His house filled? How could He ever get up and close the door? The neo-universalists argue that salvation’s door should remain eternally open. Let’s notice exactly what Jesus says: “25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’”
Notice the term “once.” Jesus seems to be saying that the opportunity to enter through that narrow door into salvation’s house is limited. It is limited by the Owner Himself! He, as the homeowner, has every right to get up and close the door to His own house, doesn’t He?
Why does a homeowner get up and close the door to his house? Perhaps the open door has made the house drafty? Perhaps he’s keeping out wild animals? No! In this text the open door is shut because the time for people to enter is over! It’s His house. It’s His door. It’s HIS prerogative to close that door when He chooses to do so.
2. But those who find themselves on the outside, on the other side of that door, do not simply go away. The verse says, “you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’” The “you” is plural. Those outside don’t give up. They continue knocking and pleading, “Sir, open the door for us.” Apparently, they are unable to break down the door, or jimmy the lock, or go into the house through a window. This door is the only way into the house, and if the houseowner doesn’t open the door, they won’t get in.
3. There is then a discussion through the door. The houseowner responds to the pleas of those outside who are asking for entrance. We read, “But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you are from.'” (v. 25). Those asking for entrance are strangers to the homeowner. They have no familial connection with the owner; He owes them nothing. The owner of the house gives them two reasons why He is not going to open the door to them: (1) “I don’t know you.” and (2) “I don’t know where you are from.”
4. But in this analogy Jesus says the conversation will continue. He says, “‘Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.'” (v. 26). So they did have a connection with the homeowner. They enjoyed at least one meal with Him and heard Him teach in their streets! These outside have moved from asking for entrance to demanding entrance based on these factors. But these do not qualify them as having a relationship with Him. His response is shocking in its unqualified rejection. Let’s carefully notice His response:
5. Jesus says the homeowner will reply, “I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!” (v. 27). Their claiming to have eaten and drunk with Him and to have heard Him teach in their streets was completely insufficient in providing a reason why He should re-open the door. The homeowner repeats exactly His rejection: “I don’t know you or where you are from.” (v. 27). He then brings the conversation to a shocking and abrupt conclusion by saying, “Away from me, all you evildoers!” (v. 27). So these pleading for entrance are not just strangers to the homeowner, but evildoers. And no sane person is going to knowingly allow an evildoer into his home!
6. We then have Jesus’ conclusion to the matter. Remember, this conversation began with someone asking Jesus a specific question: “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” Jesus concludes His analogical response by saying, 28“There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”
If we have correctly understood Jesus’ analogy as referring to eternal salvation, then His conclusion emphasizes several matters:
(a) Jesus describes the outside of the house as a place of “weeping . . . and gnashing of teeth.” Those who
don’t get into that house are on the outside and it is not a pleasant location! It is characterized by weeping and teeth-gnashing. Edersheim, referring to the expression “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (used in Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; and here in Luke 13:28), points out that “weeping” is associated in Rabbinic thought with sorrow, but “gnashing of teeth” almost always with anger (not, as generally supposed, with anguish). [Is it not, therefore, reasonable to assume that those who reject the work of Christ, if they were offered the opportunity to leave hell, would rush to spread their sin and unbelief among the blood-bought children of heaven?] Those outside the house are not in spiritual or eternal neutrality. They experience terrific pain.
(b) Those who are outside will see the celebrated leaders of Judaism (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets) in the kingdom of God. [This reminds one of the rich man’s experience in Luke 16:19-31 who sees Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom (heaven)].
(c) Those outside will not only see Israel’s leaders in the kingdom of God. But Jesus says, “you yourselves [will be] thrown out.” (v. 28). (TO BE CONTINUED)
Discussion Questions: When Jesus says in John 1:12 that one receives the RIGHT to be called a child of God, how do these pleading to be let in assume a RIGHT they do not possess? How ought the fact of the owner of the house getting up and closing the door to His house motivate every believer to systematic, strategic, intentional evangelistic efforts right now?