WHY Universal Reconciliation is wrong ?

[Thinkingstuff]

Then Jesus' death wasn't effective.

A car is a very effective transportation device. However, if the car is not used it doesn't lessen its effectiveness. The operator looses opportunity of this effective mode of transportation. Same type of thing with salvation. Jesus Sacrifice is so effective that if everyone availed themselves of the opportunity they would all be saved. However, not everyone does.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Most Baptist agree with thinkingstuff.

Then, of course, we have to deal with 2 Corinthians 5:19:
Most will buy the idea that God reconciled the world to himself (world meaning everybody). But the problem lies with the next phrase "not imputing their trespasses to them..." Most Baptists don't buy that. But the verse says nothing about reconciliation being contingent upon accepting the gift;

One can't have it both ways. If God reconciles the world, and does not impute trespasses, everybody does go to heaven. Unless, of course, "world" does not mean all without exception. That's the only way that verse can work.

This passage is not difficult at all when taken in context:

18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We 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. 21God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Bolded for emphasis of my point.

 

[Dr. Walter]

This passage is not difficult at all when taken in context: Bolded for emphasis of my point.

Tom,

You make an excellent point! Thinkingstuff's rebutal is really no rebuttal at all since most Calvinistic Baptists believe that God elects the means (preaching of the gospel) as well as the persons unto salvation.

 

[RAdam]

You can't have it both ways. The text says God has already reconciled us to Himself, and that by the death of Jesus at the cross. The ministry of reconciliation tells us this great truth. We are then told to be reconciled to God. We cannot be be already reconciled to God and need to be reconciled with God, unless they aren't talking about the same exact thing. The reality is, God's elect were reconciled to God at the cross because Jesus took away the emnity. He paid for their sins, God gave them the righteousness of Christ, and they are without blame before Him now and justified. Jesus made peace through the blood of His cross. That's now God has peace with them. That's the reality. The ministry of reconciliation is what brings this news to God's people. Now they are able to perceive it through faith, and they need to be reconciled with God. That's how they have peace with God. The gospel doesn't bring life and immortality to God's people, it brings life and immortality to light to God's people. The gospel is that which declares what God has done for His people.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Tom,

You make an excellent point! Thinkingstuff's rebutal is really no rebuttal at all since most Calvinistic Baptists believe that God elects the means (preaching of the gospel) as well as the persons unto salvation.

So your contention is that Jesus only died for the Elect? Yet we do away with fundamental scriptures like John 3:16? Or is it retranslated "For God so loved the Elect, That he gave his one and only Son that when the elect believes in him only they shall not perish but gain eternal life"?

If so then you do turn Reformed theology (Calvin) in to what he is often accused of; primarily being a double predistinarian and turning God into a Tyrant.

And my rebuttal is letting scriptures speak for themselves which contradicts his assertion of how that verse was intended to be understood.

 

[RAdam]

So your contention is that Jesus only died for the Elect? Yet we do away with fundamental scriptures like John 3:16? Or is it retranslated "For God so loved the Elect, That he gave his one and only Son that when the elect believes in him only they shall not perish but gain eternal life"?

If so then you do turn Reformed theology (Calvin) in to what he is often accused of; primarily being a double predistinarian and turning God into a Tyrant.

If one will read John 3:16 in its direct and historical context, there is no problem. The problem comes when modern man reads that verse as if it were spoken in his modern terms. Actually, this it the cause of much scriptural misunderstanding.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You can't have it both ways. The text says God has already reconciled us to Himself, and that by the death of Jesus at the cross. The ministry of reconciliation tells us this great truth. We are then told to be reconciled to God. We cannot be be already reconciled to God and need to be reconciled with God, unless they aren't talking about the same exact thing. The reality is, God's elect were reconciled to God at the cross because Jesus took away the emnity. He paid for their sins, God gave them the righteousness of Christ, and they are without blame before Him now and justified. Jesus made peace through the blood of His cross. That's now God has peace with them. That's the reality. The ministry of reconciliation is what brings this news to God's people. Now they are able to perceive it through faith, and they need to be reconciled with God. That's how they have peace with God. The gospel doesn't bring life and immortality to God's people, it brings life and immortality to light to God's people. The gospel is that which declares what God has done for His people.

I agree with you. The elect are justified "in Christ" before the foundation of the world and that is precisely why Paul can speak of them already justified in Romans 8:30 as a done deal. They are justified provisionally "in Christ" by His life and death on the cross. However, they are justified experientially through faith in that provision.

Good job in your exposition of 2 Cor. 5:17-20!

 

[RAdam]

I've never bought Gill's justification before the foundation of the world idea. Maybe one day I will, but to me the bible speaks of us being justified at the cross, and those before the cross being justified on the promise of the cross. In order for one to be truly justified, the penal and righteous requirements must be met, and both were by Jesus by His life and death.

I do fully agree that they are justified experientially through faith.

 

[Tom Butler]

thinkingstuff, what is your definition of "world" in the cited scripture passage? If it is all without exception, are not all reconciled? If "not imputing their trespasses" means all without exception, how is that not universalism? Surely you don't believe that. I don't either.

Care to interpret that passage for us? There has to be some explanation for God's not imputing trespasses to the world, reconciling the world in Christ Jesus, and Paul's coming right behind beseeching people to be reconciled, which I take to mean that some are not reconciled, but need to be.

Seems to me that it all turns on how we define "world." It all makes sense if we define it as all without exemption, instead of all without exception.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I've never bought Gill's justification before the foundation of the world idea. Maybe one day I will, but to me the bible speaks of us being justified at the cross, and those before the cross being justified on the promise of the cross. In order for one to be truly justified, the penal and righteous requirements must be met, and both were by Jesus by His life and death.

I do fully agree that they are justified experientially through faith.

I never bought into Gill's eternal justification idea either. Nor those who interpret Ephesians 2:2-3 to deny that we were "children of wrath even as others." Those who believe in "eternal" justification argue that the elect were at no time "children of wrath even as others" but were always "sheep."

They confuse eternal design/purpose with actual condition in time and space. They confuse provision with application.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If one will read John 3:16 in its direct and historical context, there is no problem. The problem comes when modern man reads that verse as if it were spoken in his modern terms. Actually, this it the cause of much scriptural misunderstanding.

So you're saying reading John in his historical context reads closer to

"For God so loved the Elect, That he gave his one and only Son that when the elect believes in him only they shall not perish but gain eternal life"?

than has been translated in our gospel? Reading the passage in its historical context I find I consider these things.
1)

It is more logical to believe that the epic teachings of this passage came first from the lips of Jesus, rather than from John.

2)

This verse is the heart of Christianity; and to identify it as coming from the reflections of a Spirit-guided John so long afterward is simply unreasonable

3)

"For" indicates that we do not have here a new section, but the continuation of the interview with Nicodemus

4)

God's love for mankind is pure, spontaneous, and constant. Jesus did not die on the cross to compel God to love people, but because he already loved them, the cross being a result of God's love, not the cause of it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

thinkingstuff, what is your definition of "world" in the cited scripture passage? If it is all without exception, are not all reconciled? If "not imputing their trespasses" means all without exception, how is that not universalism? Surely you don't believe that. I don't either.

Care to interpret that passage for us? There has to be some explanation for God's not imputing trespasses to the world, reconciling the world in Christ Jesus, and Paul's coming right behind beseeching people to be reconciled, which I take to mean that some are not reconciled, but need to be.

Seems to me that it all turns on how we define "world." It all makes sense if we define it as all without exemption, instead of all without exception.

The Greek word used is Kosmos. Or Universe. There are several meanings however, many attempt to say Jesus meant Kosmino in which case why didn't he use that word? Unless he meant specifically as he said. The World. Or the entirety of humanity. Theoretically, then if every one in the whole world believed on Jesus do you believe they would be saved? I would say yes. However, Theoretically, by your account, if everyone believed on Jesus they could not all be saved but only the elect out of the whole. Because Jesus didn't die for those not elect.

Now comes the question of effective gift or not. If a gift is not in opperation it doesn't mean the gift is ineffective but the receiptient has not put it in opperation. And by doing so they have effectively rejected the gift. I think this is how scriptures reveal to us the nature of people who are condemned already.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Greek word used is Kosmos. Or Universe. There are several meanings however, many attempt to say Jesus meant Kosmino in which case why didn't he use that word? Unless he meant specifically as he said. The World. Or the entirety of humanity. Theoretically, then if every one in the whole world believed on Jesus do you believe they would be saved? I would say yes. However, Theoretically, by your account, if everyone believed on Jesus they could not all be saved but only the elect out of the whole. Because Jesus didn't die for those not elect.

Now comes the question of effective gift or not. If a gift is not in opperation it doesn't mean the gift is ineffective but the receiptient has not put it in opperation. And by doing so they have effectively rejected the gift. I think this is how scriptures reveal to us the nature of people who are condemned already.

The term "world" is used in many different senses in the New Testament. It is used for the "system" of evil that Satan is controlling. It is used for the physical system of God's created order. It is used as a hyperbole "turned the world upside down." It is used as a synonym for "gentiles" (Rom. 11:11-12).

However, in redemptive texts it is primarily used in a JEWISH context as in John 3:16 where the audiance is a Jewish theologion - Nicodemus. John wrote to Jewish believers (Gal. 3:9; I Jn. 2:2).

I think I can present a very good case that not merely the Jewish teachers but even the early Jewish church regarded the "world" in the context of redemption something unredeemable. For example, even after Jesus gave a WORLD wide commission the Jewish church did not obey it - they would not go outside of Judaism. Peter had to be given a vision three times before he would even enter the house of Corneilus and immediately upon entering he had these wonderful words to say:

And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

It was so unprecedented that he took with him other Jews to witness it as he was going to be called in on the carpet by the Jewish church in Acts 11:1-17.

The first theologial issue was that gentiles had to become Jewish proselytes though circumcision to be saved (Acts 15:2).

The bias among Jewish Christians was so strong against including ALL RACES, GENDERS and SOCIAL stations as redeemable that John had to remind his Jewish readers that the propiation by Christ was not for them only but for "the whole world" - 1 John 2:2 - all classes and conditions of humanity.

Hence, my understanding of the term "world" in the context of redemption as used in the mouth of a Jew means "all classes, races and kinds of mankind" rather than "Jews only."

Hence, "For God so loved all classes, races and kinds of men" I believe is the correct understanding. The term world does not mean "all men without exception" but "all men without distinction."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Hence, my understanding of the term "world" in the context of redemption as used in the mouth of a Jew means "all classes, races and kinds of mankind" rather than "Jews only."

Hence, "For God so loved all classes, races and kinds of men" I believe is the correct understanding. The term world does not mean "all men without exception" but "all men without distinction."

Even in this sense there is no exclusionary clause. I would tend to agree but note its not saying God loved only all in subsets of all classes, races and kinds of men. Which is what seems to be promulgated here. This still, then taken to its logical conclusion would mean all men with out exclusion. But the emphasis being put for seems to (if you follow its logical conclusion) means God does not love all men but only those elect. I think this is antithetical to scriptures.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Even in this sense there is no exclusionary clause. I would tend to agree but note its not saying God loved only all in subsets of all classes, races and kinds of men. Which is what seems to be promulgated here. This still, then taken to its logical conclusion would mean all men with out exclusion. But the emphasis being put for seems to (if you follow its logical conclusion) means God does not love all men but only those elect. I think this is antithetical to scriptures.

The logical conclusion would not mean "all men without exclusion" but rather "all CLASSES and KINDS of men without exclusion of any CLASS or KIND." The Jewish use of "world" was to exclude all OTHER classes and kinds BUT Jews. To include ALL KINDS would not mean to include every individual within that kind but rather to deny this KIND was excluded as a KIND.

Paul uses the term "world" in Romans 11:11-12 as a synonym for "gentiles" which was a term used by Jews to designate the unclean portion of mankind except for Jews.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The logical conclusion would not mean "all men without exclusion" but rather "all CLASSES and KINDS of men without exclusion of any CLASS or KIND." The Jewish use of "world" was to exclude all OTHER classes and kinds BUT Jews. To include ALL KINDS would not mean to include every individual within that kind but rather to deny this KIND was excluded as a KIND.

Paul uses the term "world" in Romans 11:11-12 as a synonym for "gentiles" which was a term used by Jews to designate the unclean portion of mankind except for Jews.

This jewish adversion to gentiles was attacked many times by Jesus himself. They had the wrong perception of God's character and love for those outside of the covenant as well as those with in the covenant. One of the many reasons the spirit lead christianity away from the Jewish form.

 

[Dr. Walter]

This jewish adversion to gentiles was attacked many times by Jesus himself. They had the wrong perception of God's character and love for those outside of the covenant as well as those with in the covenant. One of the many reasons the spirit lead christianity away from the Jewish form.

I cannot disagree with that analysis. However, it is also true by Divine decree that God chose Israel above all other nations to give them things He did not choose to give others (Rom. 3:1; 9:4) and it is said by God that he set his "love" upon them above all other nations:

Deut. 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Yet, God had a distinguishing love even among the Jewish people (Rom. 4:6-11).

Therefore a distinguishing love is not contrary to the nature of God. Just as he had a distinguishing love for Israel above all other nations and a distinguishing love among the children of Abraham over other children of Abraham (Rom. 9:6-11) so he has a distinguishing love among all classes and kinds of people when he turns to the Gentiles/world (Rom. 4:23; 11:5-6).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I cannot disagree with that analysis. However, it is also true by Divine decree that God chose Israel above all other nations to give them things He did not choose to give others (Rom. 3:1; 9:4) and it is said by God that he set his "love" upon them above all other nations:

Deut. 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Yet, God had a distinguishing love even among the Jewish people (Rom. 4:6-11).

Therefore a distinguishing love is not contrary to the nature of God. Just as he had a distinguishing love for Israel above all other nations and a distinguishing love among the children of Abraham over other children of Abraham (Rom. 9:6-11) so he has a distinguishing love among all classes and kinds of people when he turns to the Gentiles/world (Rom. 4:23; 11:5-6).

But as in the case of limited salvation God's love necissarily is limited to only the elect rather than as I believe to all man kind. Doesn't mean its requited love.

 

[Dr. Walter]

But as in the case of limited salvation God's love necissarily is limited to only the elect rather than as I believe to all man kind. Doesn't mean its requited love.

His redemptive love is limited to the elect but His love is not limited to the elect. I think John McArthur gave an excellent illustration when he said the Scriptures use the same word "agape" for enemies as it does for non-enemies, friends, general family, children and spouse. However, you don't "love" your enemies in the same sense you love your friends. You don't love your friends in the same sense you love your family. You don't love your family in general as much as your love your specific family or children and you don't love your children as you love your spouse and you don't love your spouse in the same sense you love God. Just as one's love for God must be higher than their love for their spouse so there is different levels all the way down and yet all are love.

There is a benevolent love that God has for all mankind as he brings rain upon the good and evil alike and provides for the lowest of humans as he does for the animals. God has a creator love for the objects of his hands, animate as well as inanimate, human as well as non-human because they are all the works of his hands and are derived from Him and He loves His own things because they are a reflection of His own self.

However, He has a special covenant redemptive love for the elect above all others and that is reflected in his love for Israel above all other nations due to a COVENANT made with the "fathers" - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob which are all types of a greater covenant of redemption and a greater threefold personage. Abraham is called "THE FATHER" of us all and is a type of the Heavenly Father. Isaac is his "beloved son" and the only begotten of Abraham and is a type of God the Son the beloved and only begotten of the Father. Jacob is a type of the Holy Spirit through whom are BORN the children of Israel. God did not set his love upon all nations but only one through covenant promise and likewise God did not set his redemptive love upon all mankind without exception but upon the elect whom He:

hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; - Rev. 5:9

If you will take a look at Romans 9:24 you will see that everything Paul has said in the previous verses is applicabel to the elect among the Gentiles as well:

Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

[RAdam]

I never said world = elect in John 3:16. I said world is not a term that means universally without exception. God doesn't love every single person universally without exception. God hated Esau. God hates the workers of iniquity.

World is a term used in that context to convey that God's love and blessings were to extend beyond the Jewish nation. As God told Abraham, in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed. Paul says that God said this because one day He would justify the heathen (the Gentiles) through faith. And that is how terms like all and world are typically used in the scriptures, particularly in a Jewish context.