Fifty Million Rob Bell Fans Can’t Be Wrong
In 1959 RCA releasedFifty Million Elvis Fans Can’t Be Wrong—Elvis’ Gold Records Vol. 2.1 Elvis Presley was an exceptionally popular entertainer who was also one of the most controversial public figures of the late 1950s. The title of his second greatest hits album indicates a popular sentiment: It must be right, because millions of people believe it. But this sentiment does not translate to theology. Though many church fathers and theologians throughout the ages may have believed in a particular doctrine, it’s correctness is not established by that fact alone.
Rob Bell is the founding pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan and is the author of such books as Velvet Elvis, Sex God, Jesus Wants to Save Christians, and Drops Like Stars. Many evangelical Christians are familiar with his Nooma series of videos.2 Bell is influential in Emerging Church circles and is a popular speaker. Though his previous books have sold well, Love Wins is especially popular.
The twin premises of Love Wins are that God is a God of love and that the evangelical Christian view of God is too narrow. “Has God created billions of people over thousands of years only to select a few to go to heaven and everyone else to suffer forever in hell?”3 Bell asks. Love Wins challenges the traditional views concerning heaven, hell, and salvation. For the sake of brevity this review concentrates on Bell’s view of salvation.
Universalism
Simply stated, Rob Bell is a universalist. Baptist theologian Millard Erickson’s description of universalism also describe’s Bell’s views: “From time to time, however, a contrary position has been espoused in the Church, namely, that all will be saved. This position (is) known as universalism.”4 Some years ago Erickson noted this tendency in a list of trends within liberal evangelical circles: “A hope for near-universal salvation. God has not left Himself without a witness in all cultures, sufficient to bring people to salvation if they earnestly seek it.”5
Bell does not concern himself with “earnest seekers.” Instead, he arranges a list of passages from both the Old and New Testaments to describe God’s love for human beings.6 God must save everyone, reasons Bell:
How great is God?
Great enough to achieve what God sets out to do,
or kind of great,
medium great,
great most of the time,
but in this,
the fate of billions of people,
not totally great.
Sort of great.
A little great.7
Bell sees God as a failure if He doesn’t save everyone: “Will all people be saved, or will God not get what He wants? Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God fail in the end?”8
One could call this “God is a failure” argument “extreme pathos.” Evangelical theology answers this dilemma, “Will all be saved? The church’s usual position throughout history has been that while some or even many will be saved, some will not.”9 At least two theological arguments stand against the universal salvation espoused in Love Wins. [amazon 006204964X thumbnail]
The nature of the atonement
Bell’s view of the extent of Christ’s atonement is apparently informed by the “Moral-Influence Theory.” This view was originally developed by Peter Abelard (1079-1142), a theologian and professor at the University of Paris.10 Abelard “emphasized the primacy of God’s love and insisted that Christ did not make some sort of sacrificial payment (i.e. ransom) to the Father to satisfy His dignity. Rather, Jesus demonstrated to humanity the full extent of God’s love for them.”11
The Moral Influence Theory was further developed at a much later date by Horace Bushnell (1802-1876) in the US and Hastings Rashdall in the UK.12 Bushnell wrote, “It is not that the suffering appeased God, but that it expresses God—displays, in open history, the unconquerable love of God’s heart.”13 Lewis and Demarest summarize this theory: “At bottom, then, people are saved by the compelling power of God’s self-giving love.”14
Bell views the traditional evangelical view of salvation as “God in the end doesn’t get what God wants”15 because God “wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (NASB, 1 Tim. 2:4). What will be the outcome of the lives of billions of human beings?
To be clear, again, an untold number of serious disciples of Jesus across hundreds of years have assumed, affirmed, and trusted that no one can resist God’s pursuit forever, because God’s love will eventually melt even the hardest of hearts.16
This is universalism, clearly presented and concisely stated.
The means and extent of salvation
The second theological problem with Love Wins is Bell’s view of the means and extent of salvation. How far does the death of Christ extend to all human beings?
Rsearch on this topic reveals a “kindred spirit” to Rob Bell: Nels Ferré of Sweden.17 As a youth Ferré was troubled by his father’s conservative understanding of the Scriptures, especially his eschatology. Ferré eventually immigrated to the US where “he built his own theology on the central thought of divine love.”18 “It is his understanding of God’s love that governs his interpretation of Scriptures and the issue as a whole.”19 Ferré described the means and extent of a universalist salvation in these terms:
The logic of the New Testament at its highest and deepest point is the logic of God’s sovereign love… Those who worship the sovereign Lord dare proclaim nothing less than the total victory of His love. No other position can be consistently Christian. All other positions limit either God’s goodness or His power, in which case both Fundamentalism and modern Liberalism have their own varieties of the finite God.20
Bell’s conclusions are mirror-images to those of Ferré. Concerning the love of God, he writes:
Which is stronger and more powerful, the hardness of the human heart or God’s unrelenting, infinite, expansive love? Thousands through the years have answered that question with the resounding response, “God’s love, of course.”21
…
At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God.22
Indeed, theologians throughout the centuries have written about universalism. Origen (ca. 185-254) probably first systematized universalism: “Origen also adopted with some enthusiasm the idea of apokatastasis or universal restoration, according to which every creature, including both humanity and Satan, will be saved.”23 But universalism is not the prevalent theological concept of salvation. Over the centuries a few writers and theologians followed Origen’s lead. Far more theologians have not.
Theological method
At this point we must ask the question, “How does Rob Bell do theology?” In the case of his universalism, Bell assembles a number of verses in an effort to support of the dominance of God’s love over all His other attributes. He then adds a number of “traditions” to the mixture and concludes that everyone must be saved from destruction.
On the one hand Bell does not consider many of the Scripture passages that obstruct his assertions. On the other hand Bell paints the opposing views in stark, evil terms. In response to some church doctrinal statements concerning the condemnation of unbelievers, Bell writes:
So, in the first statement, the “unsaved” won’t be with God. In the second, not only will they not be with God, but they’ll be sent somewhere else to be punished. And in the third, we’re told that not only will these “unsaved” be punished forever, but they will be fully aware of it—in case we were concerned they might down an Ambien or two when God wasn’t looking…24
Bell does not attempt to balance the opposing views against universalism. He makes little effort to compare and synthesize the data of the biblical passages and word studies and the biblical, systematic, and historical theology—and then determine a measured conclusion. This is not to say that Bell did not do any theological research, word studies and analysis. But his presuppositions allow no other conclusion than that Love Wins. In the final analysis, Bell’s theological method is careless and prejudiced.
What may the reader conclude from Love Wins?
Love Wins is as much a book about American popular culture as it is about theology. Bell’s underlying assumptions about salvation are probably based on the prevailing concept of “fairness,” that is, there are no losers and the authorities ensure an equality of outcomes—the authority in this case being God.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that Bell perceives the traditional view of salvation as unfair because some are saved but others aren’t. Though Bell wishes the reader to think he is defending God’s honor, in reality he creates a god who is forced to serve human beings “because He loves them.” In this sense Love Wins is man-centered, or anthropocentric. Here salvation is a right and not the gift of God.
Is Love Wins a polemic against the evangelical view of the gospel? In response to the evangelical view that some are saved but others aren’t, Bell writes:
What kind of faith is that? Or, more important: What kind of God is that?25
This belief raises a number of issues, one of them being the risk each new life faces. If every new baby being born could grow up to not believe the right things and go to hell forever, then prematurely terminating a child anytime from conception to twelve years of age could actually be the loving thing to do, guaranteeing that the child ends up in heaven, and not hell, forever. Why run the risk?26
This statement is part of his “extreme pathos,” a prejudiced opinion against conservative evangelical Christianity. One might hope that Bell is merely overstating his case for emphasis and not revealing his true beliefs. However, though he makes many other harsh statements, Love Wins is not really a polemic.
The God who is revealed in the Bible is most certainly a God of love, but He is not limited to love. This is the major error of Love Wins. He is also the God of justice, mercy, forgiveness, and grace. He is infinite in His wisdom, eternal in His being, sovereign over the Universe, both transcendent and imminent, and yet He is not limited in any way by our finite understanding of these qualities or attributes. There is much we cannot understand about our great God: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.” (NASB, Isa. 55:9).
Perhaps the combination of Rob Bell’s writings, videos, personal appearances, large church and cultural influence has gained him millions of fans. But his personal popularity does not make him correct—nor does the popular culture he represents make him correct. Love Wins is poorly-done theology and a caricature of evangelical Christianity. How evangelicals wish that universalism was true! But it is not. The Bible is clear that not everyone receives salvation.
And no one’s heart breaks more for the lost than God’s.
Notes
2 Love Wins, dust jacket.
3 Quote from Love Wins dust jacket; “If you don’t have that (a personal relationship with God), you will die apart from God and spend eternity in torment in hell,” p. 10.
4 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998, p. 1025.
5 Millard J. Erickson, The Evangelical Left: Encountering Postconservative Evangelical Theology. Carlisle (UK): Paternoster Press, 1998, p. 21. Though Erickson was describing the Evangelical Left’s openness to salvation through general revelation, Bell argues that salvation is indeed universal (p. 100).
6 Love Wins, pp. 98-103. Though the dust jacket describes Love Wins as “a deeply biblical vision for rediscovering a richer, grander, truer, and more spiritually-satisfying way,” the book consistently does not utilize standard biblical book, chapter and verse citations. Instead, Bell simply refers to chapters (Psalm 22, Philippians 4, etc.). It is frustratingly difficult to find the listed verses without the standard references.
7 Love Wins, pp. 97-98.
8 Love Wins, p. 98, author’s emphasis.
9 Christian Theology, p. 1025.
10 Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Oxford (UK): Blackwell, 1998, p. 138.
11 Christian Theology, p. 803.
12 Ibid.
13 Quoted in Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990, Vol. 2, pp. 373-374 . It must be stated that neither Abelard nor Bushnell were universalists.
14 Ibid.
15 Love Wins, p. 103.
16 Love Wins, p. 108.
17 See Nels Ferré, “The Third Conversion Never Fails,” in These Found the Way, ed. David Wesley Soper (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1951) and The Christian Understanding of God (New York: Harper, 1951, p. 228).
18 Christian Theology, p. 1028.
19 Christian Theology, pp. 1028-1029.
20 The Christian Understanding of God, pp. 246-247.
21 Love Wins, p. 109.
22 Ibid.
23 Historical Theology, p. 25.
24 Love Wins, p. 96.
25 Love Wins, p. 4.
26 Ibid.
jimfrank Bio
Jim Franklin is a native of Covington, Kentucky and is 2004 graduate of Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. He earned his MA in Theological Studies at age 50. He served twenty years in the US Air Force as a supply specialist and medical technician, retiring in 1997 as a Technical Sergeant. Jim was an Adjunct Professor of English with Grace College’s Prison Extension Division from 2008 to 2011. He is currently the pastor of Flora Grace Brethren Church, Flora, Indiana. Jim is married to Alice. They have two adult sons. Jim blogs with his good friend Jeff Bowers at “The World as Best I Remember It” and comments at The American Thinker as “Van Owen.”
- 14 views
I usually just call it a causation fallacy.
Of course, if something comes after something else the earlier thing might be the cause of the later thing. But the sequence doesn’t prove the causal relationship.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[nbanuchi] 5. I do not see how unlimited atonement can lead to Universalism when coupled with libertarian free will as the condition on man’s part for it’s actualization (unlike Calvinism, this does not deny the premise that God intends to save believers, but confirms it).Calvinism “does not deny the premise that God intends to save believers”! Calvinism affirms that God intends to save believers.
All who are hungry and thirsty (John 6:35) may come, whoever believes will have everlasting life (John 3:16).
Calvinism insists that man in his natural state (unregenerate) does not recognize that he is hungry and thirsty, nor is he willing to come. Something must happen to cause man to recognize hunger and thirst, and to make man willing. Call it whatever you want, but most frequently Calvinists refer to that as regeneration. However, we do not treat the words regeneration and salvation as synonymous. There is already a discussion of http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-regeneration-precedes-faith] the regeneration issue , so won’t belabor it in this thread.
There is a http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=6649] closed thread , as well as an http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-free-will-redux] open thread on the subject of Free Will.
[nbanuchi] The denial of free will and the thought that “faith” is something given an lead some one to accept Univeralism; for if God can do it for the “few”, will not love compel him to do so for “all”?You seem to be conflating monergism and synergism here.
I affirm that faith is a gift from God, given only to the elect, while at the same time denying universalism.
Monergistic Calvinism affirms that God’s love for his elect is different than his love for the non-elect. The view also affirms that God is not obligated (compelled) to offer mercy and grace to any man, so the fact that he offers it to some and not others is not unfair.
Upon reading the OT one can easily see that God’s affection for the childrewn of Israel is significantly different than any affection he shows for the other nations. Look at Egypt, Jericho, and all of the “ites” peoples, and it is evident that God’s unconditional love for Israel is different. It is the synergist that insists on God being fair, that He must love “all” in the same manner.
In Romans 9:18-21 Paul answers the question of fairness.
[NKJV] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
[nbanuchi] 4. I may have misunderstood the article but I think the author’s point is that the only way to get away from the Calvinisticl teaching of unconditional election, and all that it entails respecting the foreordination of certain one’s to hell, without sacrificing God’s absolute sovereignty, is to posit Universalism.Notice in the http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html Canons of Dort, 1st Main Point of Doctrine , that God is active in election, but is passive in reprobation
Article 1: God’s Right to Condemn All People
Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin. As the apostle says: The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God (Rom. 3:19), All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), and The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).
Article 6: God’s Eternal Decision
The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision. For all his works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act—unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just—of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God’s Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.
Article 15: Reprobation
Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election— those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[G. N. Barkman] The Arminian “solution” turns out to be unsatisfactory after all.I just read this online; it was one of the replies in a forum discussion on Calvinism and God’s love:
Calvinism and Arminianism “don’t have the same ultimate problem. Yes in Calvinism and Arminianism some folks will go to hell. The difference though is the Arminians believe those that go to hell do so of their own free will. Calvinisms God purposefully chose who would go to hell, determined who would go to hell, chose not to draw or woo them, and is happy they are in hell. The Arminians view of God is that while some will end up in hell, God will woo them, draw them, and hurt for them… not feel pleasure in their burning in hell forever. The Arminian God desires that all be saved (and hence avoid Hell) while the Calvinist God enjoys sending folks to hell. The in essence, Arminians believe folks will suffer in hell because of their rejection of Christ, while Calvinists believe they will suffer in hell forever because of God’s choice and good pleasure (… yes they might say those in hell chose to be there, but is a choice a choice if there is not an alternative and God purposefully works and determines who will go there?).”
See: http://randalrauser.com/2011/07/calvinism-preaches-a-god-of-love-and-ye…
Thought it might relate’ If it does not, I apologize for taking your time.
[nbanuchi]I have followed this thread with some interest and am not directing these comments to anyone other than the original author of this quote - randalrauser.com. This is a misstatement of Calvinism. I speak of the statement[G. N. Barkman] The Arminian “solution” turns out to be unsatisfactory after all.I just read this online; it was one of the replies in a forum discussion on Calvinism and God’s love:
Calvinism and Arminianism “don’t have the same ultimate problem. Yes in Calvinism and Arminianism some folks will go to hell. The difference though is the Arminians believe those that go to hell do so of their own free will. Calvinisms God purposefully chose who would go to hell, determined who would go to hell, chose not to draw or woo them, and is happy they are in hell. The Arminians view of God is that while some will end up in hell, God will woo them, draw them, and hurt for them… not feel pleasure in their burning in hell forever. The Arminian God desires that all be saved (and hence avoid Hell) while the Calvinist God enjoys sending folks to hell. The in essence, Arminians believe folks will suffer in hell because of their rejection of Christ, while Calvinists believe they will suffer in hell forever because of God’s choice and good pleasure (… yes they might say those in hell chose to be there, but is a choice a choice if there is not an alternative and God purposefully works and determines who will go there?).”
See: http://randalrauser.com/2011/07/calvinism-preaches-a-god-of-love-and-ye…
Thought it might relate’ If it does not, I apologize for taking your time.
“God chose those who would go to hell.”While it is semantically true, it is a twisted version of truth. God chose who He would redeem. However, everyone who ends up in hell is there because they chose to be there while rejecting God. God does not force anyone to reject Him against their will. Every person gets exactly what they want. Nor does the Calvinist believe God finds pleasure in condemning sinners to hell. This is a false dichotomy between the two systems. This is the subtle line dividing those who disagree about double predestination - subtle but distinct.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I don’t understand what you mean regarding Rauser’s comment that “God chose those who would go to hell”, which you say, “While it is semantically true, it is a twisted version of truth.”
If the meaning of what is stated is true (is this what you mean by semantics?), then how is it, at the same time, false (for a statement to be “a twisted version of truth” is false). What am I missing here?
Please explain. Thank you.
[Aaron Blumer]…there’s an old logical fallacy called something like post hoc ergo propter hoc. It means basically “It happened after so it must have been caused by.” I usually just call it a causation fallacy. Of course, if something comes after something else the earlier thing might be the cause of the later thing. But the sequence doesn’t prove the causal relationship.Hi Aaron,
I don’t think I’m making that mistake. I did not say Calvinism necessarily leads to Univeralism but only that (in a logical sequence), the rejection, or rather, a refutation of Calvinism may lead to Universalism. I may not have been clear, so please accept my apologies.
If the proposition is “may”, not “necessarily”, your assertion loses much of its force. The very same statement could be made equally for Arminianism, which “may” also lead to universalism. In fact, the the example before us would point in that direction. Bell is no Calvinist. His theology leans more toward Arminianism. Hence, his move to Universalism demonstrates that Arminianism may lead to universalism.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Most Calvinists believe that in election, God viewed man as already fallen. In that condition, God chose to rescue some from Hell, and allow others to proceed to their own chosen fate. Is God obligated to rescue all if He rescues some? No. Study Christ’s parable of the Laborers in Matthew 20:1-16. “Is your eye envious because I am generous?” (15b) God is under no obligation to rescue any. He allowed ALL the fallen angels to remain under condemnation without providing salvation for any. He could justly do the same for fallen humanity.
All men were already on the way to Hell. God chose to rescue some. Those He rescued were given new desires. Hence, everyone gets exactly what he chose in the end. Unbelieving sinners receive exactly what they choose. The elect receive what they choose. God receives what He chose. What could be more “fair” than that?
Did God, therefore, “choose” some for Hell? Only in the sense that He chose not to rescue them. The “choosing” of the elect is not an exact parallel to passing over the non-elect. God determined to leave some to their own sinful choices, and to rescue some out of their self chosen misery by providing them with a Savior, and giving them new desires.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] Hello again nbanuchi, If the proposition is “may”, not “necessarily”, your assertion loses much of its force….I understand that my assertion loses much of it’s force; I was only attempting to suggest that’s where Bells’ book can be coming from. Well, I’ll just need to read the book. I appreciate your comments.
[Barkman] The problem is how to ascribe absolute sovereignty to God, and not assert that He chooses men for Hell. In some ways, this really is a matter of semantics. Does God “choose” men for Hell? Yes and No. It all depends.I must respectfully submit that it seems to me your comments seem to engage in double-talk.
It must be semantics - and not a matter of what the Bible clearly and forthrightly reveals respecting man’s salvation - for the Calvinists because only by making qualifying statements (“Yes and no. It all depends”) and changing the meanings of words and terms can the Calvinist arrive at conclusions that [I] appear[/I] Biblical and logical but are really unwarranted by Scripture and absurd.
I mean no offense.
[Barkman] Most Calvinists believe that in election, God viewed man as already fallen. In that condition, God chose to rescue some from Hell, and allow others to proceed to their own chosen fate.First of all, it seems there is an attempt here to cast God as active in the eternal fate of the elect and passive in the damnation of the non-elect. That’s not an accurate portrayal as far as what I read in the Bible (Matt 5:29-30; 8:12; 25:30; Rev 14:19; 20:14-15).
According to Calvinist teaching, it seems to me, the non-elect do not “proceed to their own chosen fate” but to that fate chosen for them by divine decree (cf. WCF 3:3-4); and as God preordained to save men (WCF 3:5-6), in what can only be opposite-like manner He chose to damn others (WCF 3:7).
However, even the WCF seems to engage in much double-talk when, on the one hand it states, “[I] By the decree[/I] of God…others (He) foreordained to everlasting death,” yet, on the other hand it reads, “to ordain them to…wrath [I] for their sin[/I].”
What you say may be what Calvinists believe but, from my perspective, such assertions demonstrate double-talk.
Another example of double-talk in the WCF is found in 3:1, where it states, on the one hand that God “ordain(s) whatsoever comes to pass,” yet, right afterwards, on the other hand, it reads, “so as God is not the author of sin.”
If God ordains all things, especially in light of the Calvinistic notion of divine providence (5:1), how can God not be the author of sin? To say it is a “mystery” is escapism and the acknowlegement that one does not know the answer.
In the second place, to say God “allows” the eternal damnation of the non-elect is misleading and, as far as I can see, an attempt to obscure or escape the hard and what others may see as offensive conclusion of Calvinistic teaching.
God’s decree of foreordination to heaven/hell was made before man was created, as believed by some Calvinists, therefore, anything man did was not contemplated in the divine choice. As other Calvinists are Infralapsarianism, they still have to deal with the fact that God makes choices based only upon His good pleasure and secret counsel (any other reason would be speculation). Both views demonstrate the divine choice as the first, ultimate, and arbitrary cause; it has no relation whatsoever to either what the non-elect or elect have/have not done (i.e. the divine choice had nothing to do regarding what was “just” or “fair” but only what was the mere “good pleasure” of God; what someone else described as what “makes God happy”).
[Barkman] Is God obligated to rescue all if He rescues some? No. Study Christ’s parable of the Laborers in Matthew 20:1-16. “Is your eye envious because I am generous?” (15b) God is under no obligation to rescue any.First of all, it looks to me, as I read the text, that you are taking Matt 20:1-16 totally out of context. It is a parable about the kingdom of heaven and has specific reference to the believer, not the unbeliever. “(T)he story is purposely molded as to reflect what occurs in God’s rule of grace” (Lenski).
Second, God is obligating himself to what was agreed upon between him and the early workers and granting, as an obligation, the same to the late-comers. Whether coming early or late, all are recepients of what agreed upon as promised under conditions clearly stated.
The issue is not rescuing from hell, but the equality all men have under the rule of the heavenly kingdom now and upon its actualization and, therefore, the equal mercy that will be bestowed on each for their labors within the kingdom.
In vs.16 (cp.19:30), the warning is to those who seek to enter the kingdom merely on the basis of having worked for it and who despise those who they view as not having sufficiently earned entrance. It is not about who God is obligated or not obligated to save; it is not so much the idea of a divine election that is the emphasis of the parable, but of divine grace.
As far as your assertion that God is not obligated to save all men, however, neither will He “rightfully do with them whatever His inifinite and absolute power could do with them” (Arminius); or, as I have said it, God will not do to men what can be imagined of a God possessing inifinte and absolute power could do.
[Barkman] He allowed ALL the fallen angels to remain under condemnation without providing salvation for any. He could justly do the same for fallen humanity.Yes, God could justly keep mankind under damnation, however, one cannot view God to be just in choosing damnation for some men (while saving others) “as he pleases” without any consideration of their unbelief, wicked works, or their perseverance in them. In affirming so, one may retain the idea of God’s absolue power, but he would deny any reasonable idea of divine justice.
I must repeat that the use of “allow” is self-contradictory when it is stated that God “ordain(s) whatsoever comes to pass,” especially when coupled with the notion of his providence as explained in the WCF 5:1 (cp. 3:1).
[Barkman] All men were already on the way to Hell.This is what the Calvinist asserts but it is not an accurate reflection of what I see as taught by Calvinism, especially if the decree to save some and damn others is made before each man was created. As such, the elect were never “already on the way to Hell”; only the non-elect are. The elect were always “from all eternity” already on their way to heaven.
To be continued…
[Barkman] God chose to rescue some. Those He rescued were given new desires. Hence, everyone gets exactly what he chose in the end. Unbelieving sinners receive exactly what they choose. The elect receive what they choose. God receives what He chose. What could be more “fair” than that?This also is a clear example of Calvinistic double-talk.
God’s choice to save had nothing to do with what the saved did; nothing at all (WCF 3:2,5). God made the choice to save certain for reasons unknown except that it was the “good pleasure of His will.” Therefore, for someone to say that the “non-elect” or the “elect receive what they choose” is asserting a wisdom that God had not revealed to anyone else and ascribing to man a part in his own salvation.
As far as what Calvinism teaches, if one is to follow the logic, neither the “elect” nor the “elect receive what they choose” but each receives what God has foreordained by decree and thus chose for them to receive.
[Barkman] Did God, therefore, “choose” some for Hell? Only in the sense that He chose not to rescue them. The “choosing” of the elect is not an exact parallel to passing over the non-elect. God determined to leave some to their own sinful choices, and to rescue some out of their self chosen misery by providing them with a Savior, and giving them new desires.Again, it seems you are engaging in double-talk here.
“Only in a sense”? That looks to me like an attempt to redefine phrases and meanings; to skirt the logical conclusion of an absolute sovereignty that decrees and foreordains all things “from all eternity”.
God was not passive, as you seem to make Him, in the eternal damnation of the “non-elect”, as I showed before.
First if “God from all eternity…ordain(s) whatsoever comes to pass”, then He ordained “from all eternity” the damnation of certain ones and, being “from all eternity” past, it had nothing whatsoever to do with deserts or fairness) but only, as the WCF asserts, the divine “good pleasure”.
Second, God provided only the “elect” with a Savior and “fore-ordained all the means” to effect their salvation. Therefore, having from all eternity damned the non-elect, God also foreordained every and all means whereby the non-elect may never procure salvation and assured their damnation in no uncertain terms.
No man is getting what he deserves; all men are receiving what God has chosen for them…period.
As such, to say God “allowed” or “passed over” does not nullify God’s activity in casting those whom He has foreordained by divine fiat from all eternity and before their creation into an eternal damnation on the mere basis of a divine pleasure. It’s not like they slipped and fell on their own accord accidently into hell. To not choose is to choose. God chose men for damnation. How one escapes that logical step in Calvinistic thought and denies it may be creative but it is still, at least from where I sit, double-talk.
Please do not take my responses as hostile. I am not a scholar and have come to an understanding of the Bible through personal study. My objections are not meant as a personal attack against anyone’s person but only as objections (however poorly made) to what Calvinism teaches and towards what I see as the double-talk engaged in to sustain it’s tenets. I am only so surprised that such forms of double-talk are not only engaged in but unrealized by those who form such arguments in defense of Calvinism.
I have experienced Calvinism to have confusing and self-contradictory views of the Gospel message.
I appreciate everyone’s responses and the patience taken to read my postings.
[Barkman] God chose to rescue some. Those He rescued were given new desires. Hence, everyone gets exactly what he chose in the end. Unbelieving sinners receive exactly what they choose. The elect receive what they choose. God receives what He chose. What could be more “fair” than that?I just noticed this comment again and wanted to make a few observations.
1. I’m amazed how one can miss the double-talk here. Here we have, on the one hand, the assertion that “God chose to rescue some”, and then, on the other hand, “sinners receive exactly what they choose.” Each cancels out the other and renders both assertions meaningless.
2. Unless what is meant is that those whom God choose for salvation, He gave the ability - new desires - that resulted in their acquiesence to God’s saving work; while, to those whom God decided to reject, he gave refused to grant them such an ability. Howevever, that contradicts the assertion that each “everyone gets exactly what he chose”. The elect did not get what they choose; they received the ability to choose what they could not choose and, thereby, were “re-wired” to go along with God’s plan for them; they could not choos otherwise. So, for the saved, again, they essentially God, not what they had chosen, but what God had chosen for them. The non-elect did not get to choose one way or the other since (a) God had already chosen their end “from all eternity”, and (b) God had wired them to choose according to what He had chosen for them, that is, damnation.
3. This is the point at which can be led to Univeralism because if God can “chose to rescue some” and “given new desires” to them, the question may be legitimately asked, why not for all, especially if God is love and powerful enough to choose all for salvation? Why not? Because the only way God can properly demonstrate His glory and justice is by the eternal torment of some (if not many)? If that is the case, one may just be forced to re-think just what is the nature of this “wise”, “omnipotent,” and “loving” God he seeks to believe in.
Unfortunately, Chip, the assertions you make seem to engage in double-talk. This statement alone is a clear example of double-talk: “God chose who He would redeem. However, everyone who ends up in hell is there because they chose to be there while rejecting God.”
1. It is a self-contradiction to assert that God chooses those who go to hell and, at the same time, that those who go to hell choose it for themselves; each statement cancels out the other and, thereby, ends in a meaningless assertion.
2.If the condemnation of “some men” is according to the divine “good pleasure” (as insisted in the WCF), then God is pleased (happy, glad, gratified, contented) to damn “some men” to eternal damnation. The logic is warranted regardless of any denials to the contrary.
3. Maybe it can be said that God “does not force anyone to reject Him against their will” but that is only because, having elected “from all eternity some men” to eternal damnation, God has decreed to withhold the grace and faith necessary for their salvation through the governing of their rebellious actions “from the least even to the greatest” in order that their condemnation would “come to pass immutably and infallibly” (WCF 5:1-4).
In another place, Calvinism teaches that certain men were created expressly for eternal damnation. Being created for such, there is no need for God to “force” their rejection of Him; they were created to do so. Simply put, none are forced to reject God because it has already been hardwired in them to do so. No one forces a computer to go off or on; it’s made to do so. No one forces a dog to bark; they are made to do so.
4. To say that God acts in choosing some for salvation but stand passive – “passing over”; “leaving” – the rest for damnation is positing a double-predestination. Denial, however creative, to the contrary is merely double-talk. By the [I] act[/I] of not choosing, God choose.
Standing in line to be picked on a team to play stickball, if the captain of one team “passes me over”, then [I] he[/I] made the choice that I not play on his team. Someone asks me, “Why aren’t you playing in that team?” Would I be telling the truth if I answered, “[I] I[/I] chose not to be in that team”?
Respectfully, the only subtlety I can see here is the manner is which double-talk is used to sustain untenable and unbiblical propositions.
Please note that nothing here stated is intended as an attack against or an insult to anyone’s person. If some points are taken as offensive, please accept my apology and give allowances for my lack of education and experience in forming thoughts objectively.
What sounds like “double talk” to you enables others to understand important areas of truth that are otherwise incomprehensible.
To the Jehovah’s Witness, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity sounds like double talk. God is one, yet God is three. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons yet one God? How foolish! Double Talk! And yet, as we know, this is exactly what the Bible teaches, and failing to accept this doctrine is not only wrong, but fatal to the soul. Much spiritual truth is foolishness to the natural man.
Your prejudice to the Bible’s teaching regarding God’s sovereignty in salvation is blinding you to important Bible truth.
I thank you for the discussion, and the opportunity it affords to articulate truths which are precious to me.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
With all due respect, when I say you are engaging in “doubletalk”, that is when you present two propositions that cancel out each other resulting in meaningless assertions; add to that qualifications that change the meaning of phrases and terms only more confuses rather than clarifies the issues.
For example, to say that God chooses whom to save and then assert that man chooses for himself is doubletalk; each proposition cancels out the other.
That God is three and yet one is, fortunately, not doubletalk because one is not saying God is three God’s that are one God but that God is three persons, which comprise the one God. Although that may require a JW to stretch their imagination a bit, it is not doubletalk (at least, not from my perspective). I am not asking the JW to believe in a self-contradiction but to submit to a mystery, that is, the mystery of one God in his esssential nature as three persons.
I not prejuduced against what the Bible teaches, as far as I understand it; I am prejudiced against what Calvinism teaches with regard to salvation.
Finally, I do hope my comments that your assertions, at least to me, consist of doubletalk did not offend you; that is not at all my intention.
In the hopes that continued discussion offers all of us the necessary grace to pursue, if not uniformity, that amity, which places oneself in sympathy for another’s standing in Christ.
Discussion