Saturday, August 17, 2019

Did John reveal the truth of the salvation of all mankind in his writings? (Part One)

Introduction

The truth of the salvation of all humanity is, I believe, one of the most important and beautiful doctrinal truths revealed in scripture. And elsewhere on my blog (such as my three-part series on Christ’s ransoming work as well as the very first blog article I posted), I’ve demonstrated where, in scripture, I believe this truth has been revealed to us (as well as why I believe the verses to which I’ve appealed in support of this truth do, in fact, support it). Among those who’ve read my articles on this doctrinal subject, some may wonder why I haven’t appealed to verses outside of Paul’s letters in defense of this truth. The reason for this is simple: I’m not convinced that the truth of the salvation of all humanity can be found outside of Paul’s letters.

Now, I hope the reader will not misunderstand me here. I firmly believe that the rest of Scripture is perfectly consistent with the truth of the salvation of all. There’s not a single verse or passage in scripture that I believe contradicts this doctrine. I also believe that there are many verses throughout the scriptures that can be understood as “pointing toward” this truth (to a greater or lesser degree), without actually revealing or affirming it. And there are some great articles and books out there which I believe convincingly show that, in light of other clearly-affirmed truths of scripture – such as the love, wisdom and absolute sovereignty of God – the doctrine of the salvation of all humanity is far more reasonable to believe than any of the alternative positions affirmed by Christians (and could even be considered a necessary inference, as I argued in one of my earlier blog articles). But as for an actual revelation of the truth of the salvation of the entire human race (as well as the reconciliation of all creation to God), I think this priceless doctrinal gem can be found in Paul’s letters alone.

I realize that there are a number of verses and passages outside of Paul’s letters to the body of Christ that some believe support this doctrinal truth (such as, for example, Genesis 12:3, Lamentations 3:31, Ecclesiastes 12:7, Acts 3:21, 2 Peter 3:9 and Revelation 21:3-5). However, I believe that these and other verses have been misunderstood, and are being misapplied, by those who appeal to them in support of the truth of universal salvation. And insofar as this is the case, I can’t help but believe that those who appeal to them have, unfortunately, failed to fully appreciate what’s actually being revealed and communicated in the verse or passage in view. For example, Lamentations 3:31 is about God’s faithfulness to his covenant people, Israel, and not to all humanity without exception (see, for example, Lam. 4:22; 5:18-22).[1] Similarly, the “restoration of all” referred to by Peter in Acts 3:21 is not a reference to the salvation of all humanity, but rather has to do with the fulfillment of all of the promises God made concerning the future destiny and expectation of Israel (compare the terminology used here with that found earlier in Acts 1:6, where we find the disciples asking Christ if he was about to be “restoring the kingdom to Israel”).[2] And Peter’s words in 2 Pet. 3:9 apply to those whom God has chosen for “entrance into the eonian kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:11), and to whom God will be mercifully granting repentance before the coming indignation of the “day of the Lord” commences. Rather than being a promise to save all humanity, this verse implies that many people will, in fact, “perish” (and thus fail to enter into the “eonian kingdom” referred to earlier).

Some believers – in their understandable zeal for the truth of the salvation of all – assume that such a beautiful and glorious truth as this must be present (or at least heavily implied) throughout the scriptures. I myself once believed this to be the case, and read books by authors who believed and defended it. However, I’ve since come to understand that scripture is primarily concerned with events taking place during the eons. That is, its main focus is on that which has occurred, and will be occurring, during these long spans of time (the last two of which will be the eons for which Christ shall be reigning).[3] And insofar as scripture’s main focus is on that which has occurred (and will be occurring) during the eons, I don’t believe it has much to say concerning that which will be occurring when/after Christ’s eonian reign ends, and he delivers up the kingdom to God (in fulfillment of Paul’s prophecy in 1 Cor. 15:24-28). And insofar as the salvation of all humanity (and the reconciliation of all to God) is going to take place at the very end of Christ’s eonian reign (and thus after the last and greatest eon has run its course), this event is among the most distant future events revealed in scripture. Even if Christ were to return to establish the kingdom of God on the earth within the next ten years (as I think is possible), the salvation of all could still be considered a relatively distant future event. As long as Christ’s reign over the kingdom of God continues – and, according to scripture, its duration will be “for the eons of the eons” (Revelation 11:15) – the salvation of all will remain a future reality.

Most Christians see the last book of the Bible – i.e., the Book of Revelation or “Unveiling of Jesus Christ” – as the pinnacle of revelation and prophecy, and believe that its author (the apostle John) saw further into the future than any other inspired writer. However, rather than revealing what is to occur at the consummation (as Paul does in 1 Cor. 15:22-28 and elsewhere), the furthest point to which I believe John brings his readers is the final eon of Christ’s reign. In accord with this fact, all of the blessings of which we read in Rev. 21:3-4 (for example) have to do with conditions on the new earth during Christ’s reign, and do not refer to a state of affairs beyond the last eon. Similarly, the fulfillment of the inspiring promise found in v. 5 (“Lo! New am I making all!”) will, I believe, be occurring when this future eon begins, and should be understood as referring to all that will be in existence during this time period (e.g., the new heavens and new earth, and everything that will be populating these realms).[4] Thus, as important and valuable as the truth found in John’s prophetic work is, I believe it still falls short of the highest and most glorious truth that we find revealed in Paul’s letters to the saints in the body of Christ.

Outside of Paul’s writings to the saints in the body of Christ, it would seem that John’s Gospel account and first letter are the most commonly appealed to in support of the doctrine of universal salvation. However, as is the case with the verses on which I provided some brief remarks above, I believe that every verse or passage from these writings that’s thought by some to affirm the salvation of all humanity is actually affirming a truth that pertains to events that will be taking place during the eons of Christ’s reign (and thus prior to the consummation). I realize this position is not affirmed by some (perhaps many) within the body of Christ, and will be considered somewhat controversial among my fellow believers in the salvation of all. Thus, the bulk of this study will consist in a defense of the view to which I hold concerning what John revealed (and didn’t reveal) in his writings.

As I provide reasons for why I don’t think the truth of the salvation of all is revealed in John’s writings, some may think that I’m trying to undermine the truth of the salvation of all. But that’s the opposite of what I’m trying to do here. My goal is not to weaken the case for this doctrinal position, but rather to strengthen it. Some seem to believe that the case for the salvation of all is only as strong as the number of verses we can put forth in support of it. According to this understanding, the more “proof-texts” we have, the stronger the case we can make for the doctrine. Given this mindset, it’s not at all surprising that some have attempted to use verses which, although consistent with (and perhaps “pointing toward”) the truth of universal salvation, are really not directly related to this truth. However, when it comes to defending this important doctrine, a single verse or passage that clearly proves the truth of the salvation of all humanity (e.g., 1 Tim. 4:10) is far more valuable and powerful than a hundred misapplied verses, no matter how positive or inspiring the truth being affirmed in these verses may be. And the clear evidence for the salvation of all that we find in Paul’s letters is, I believe, entirely adequate to support this doctrine, and should be the focus of every believer in their defense of it.

In relation to the last point, I also believe that, when we come to the realization that the apostle Paul was the only inspired writer to reveal the truth of the salvation of all humanity and the reconciliation of all creation to God, this realization can only lead to a greater appreciation for his unique calling and apostolic ministry, and for the thirteen epistles he wrote for the edification of those within the body of Christ. Thus, my hope for those reading is that, rather than feeling like they’ve lost a few “proof-texts” for the doctrine of universal salvation from John’s writings, they will have gained a deeper appreciation and gratitude for Paul, the apostle of the nations.

The meaning of the term “world” in John’s Account

Before we examine the first verse from John’s Account that is considered by some to be an affirmation of the truth that all humanity will be saved, we need to consider the meaning of the Greek word translated “world” (kosmos). The term literally means, “an ordered system,” and can denote different things in different contexts. In the three “Synoptic Gospels” (Matthew, Mark and Luke), the word seems to be used most often to denote the realm of human society (Matt. 4:8; 5:14; 13:22, 38; 24:14; Mark 16:15; Luke 12:30). This is also how I believe the word is most often used in John’s writings.

For example, in 1 John 5:19 we’re told that “the whole world is lying in the wicked one.” Although a vast number of people on the earth could be said to be, to some degree or another, living under the deceptive influence and control of Satan (cf. 2 Cor. 4:3-4; Eph. 2:1-2; 2 Tim. 2:26), this is not the case for every human being alive on the earth today (nor was it the case when John wrote). However, when understood as a reference to the whole realm of human society, John’s statement can be understood in a literal, straightforward way (since human society is constituted by an unbelieving majority). Consider also the last verse of John’s Gospel, where we read that, if everything Jesus did during his earthly ministry was written down, “not even the world itself could contain the written scrolls” (John 21:25). By the “whole world” here, John was apparently referring to the whole realm of human society – where scrolls and books are (or could be) kept – rather than human beings themselves (whether collectively or individually).

Moreover, anywhere that we find the expression “into the world” in John’s account, the realm of human society – and not human beings themselves – seems to be in view. We read, for example, of a human child being “born into the world” (John 16:21). And on several occasions Christ referred to himself (or is referred to) as having come “into the world” (e.g., John 6:14; 11:27; 12:46) and as having been dispatched “into the world” by God (John 10:36). We also read that, just as the Father dispatched his Son into the world, so Christ dispatched his twelve disciples into the world (John 17:18) – i.e., he dispatched them into the realm of human society, to conduct their public ministry as his apostles.

The first four occurrences of the word kosmos appear in John 1:9-10: “The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.” As is the case with the verses referenced earlier, the term kosmos or “world” seems to be denoting the realm of human society. It must be noted that, with the last instance of the word in v. 10 (“yet the world did not know him”), a figure of speech (i.e., association) is being used. Obviously, the realm of human society into which the “the true light” (i.e., God, who made himself known through his Son) entered cannot literally “know” God, or anything at all. Rather, it is people who are in the world (i.e., people within the realm of human society) who can be said to either know, or not know, God. That the term is being used figuratively in v. 10 to denote people in the world is further evident from the next verse: ”To his own he came, and those who are his own accepted him not.”

The last part of verse 10 indicates that the word kosmos can be used figuratively to denote people in the realm of human society. But when the word is used in a figurative sense to denote people, does it refer to every person without exception? Or, does it refer to only a certain category of people, depending on the context? I’m convinced that the latter is the case, and that the word kosmos rarely – if ever – refers to every person in the world without exception. Consider, for example, John 1:10-11. Based on these two verses alone, one might conclude that not a single person in the world accepted God. However, in the next verse, we’re provided with the exception to the statement that “the world did not know him”: “Yet whoever obtained him, to them he gives the right to become children of God…” The “whoever” of v. 12 is a subcategory of those referred to as “his own” in v. 11. Thus, from these verses, we find that there were some who did come to know the Father through Christ, and who were given “the right to become children of God.”

In John 1:7 and 15:8 Christ referred to “the world” as hating him. But now consider what Christ said concerning the people that he had in mind by the term “world”: “…they have hated Me as well as My Father, but it is that the word written in their law may be fulfilled, that they hate Me gratuitously” (John 15:25). In other words, the people in the world whom Christ had in mind when he declared that “the world” hated him were specifically unbelievers belonging to the Jewish nation, and not all people without exception (or even all unbelievers without exception). Consider also John 16:20, where Christ told his disciples that, after his death, they would weep and lament, but that “the world” would rejoice. Did everyone in the world (or even every unbeliever in the world) rejoice after Christ’s death? No; of course not. Relatively few people on the planet rejoiced after Christ was crucified. It was those in the world who hated Christ “gratuitously” (and who belonged primarily, if not exclusively, to the nation of Israel) who can be said to have “rejoiced” after he was crucified.

Another example of the term “world” being used figuratively to refer to a relatively small number of people in the world is John 7:4, where Christ was told to show himself “to the world.” Although Christ was being told to show himself to people (and not to trees, hills or empty space), it was clearly not every person in the world to whom Christ was being told to show himself. Similarly, in John 8:26 Christ said that he’d declared “to the world” what he’d heard from the Father. And in 18:20 Christ said that he’d “with boldness spoken to the world” (which Christ went on to explain as meaning that he’d always taught “in a synagogue and in the sanctuary where all the Jews are coming together…”). For more examples of where the term kosmos clearly refers to far less than the total human population on earth, see John 12:19, 14:19, 22, 15:19 and 17:14.

Based on the above verses, it’s evident that, when the term “world” refers to people within the realm of human society, it is not necessarily referring to every person in the world without exception (or even most people in the world). Instead, it’s referring to some category of people within the world. And since different people can be in view depending on the context, we should always ask ourselves which people (or which category of people) may or may not be in view, and look to the context to help us answer this question.

“Taking away the sin of the world”

With these preliminary considerations concerning the term “world” out of the way, let’s now consider John 1:29: “On the morrow he [John the baptist] is observing Jesus coming toward him, and is saying, “Lo! the Lamb of God Which is taking away the sin of the world!”” What did John mean by the term “world” in this statement? Since it’s unlikely that John was referring to the realm of human society itself, we can understand him to have been affirming the fact that Christ would be taking away the sin of a category of people existing within the realm of human society. But which category of people did John have in mind? Those who think John the Baptist was affirming the truth of universal salvation here assume that he believed that every person in the world who had ever lived (or ever will live) will be saved by Christ. However, we can’t just assume that John believed this. And even if John did affirm the truth of universal salvation (or at least hoped that it might be true), we can’t just assume that it was John’s intention to express this belief at this time, when he saw Jesus coming toward him on that day. But if it wasn’t John’s intention to express the idea that every person in the world was going to be saved by Christ, then which category of people in the world did John have in mind here?

I think we’re given a clue as to which category of people within the realm of human society John had in mind in John 1:6-7 (where we’re told what John’s mission involved): There came to be a man, commissioned by God. His name is John. This one came for a testimony, that he should be testifying concerning the light, that all should be believing through it.” To whom did John testify about the light (i.e., Christ) during his preparatory ministry? Did John testify to every human being on the earth? Did God, through the ministry of John, give every person who had ever lived an opportunity to believe in Christ? No. John went on to specify which category of people his “all” referred to. In v. 31 we read, “But that [Christ] may be manifested to Israel, therefore I came, baptizing in water.”

John’s ministry was limited to the people of Israel. It was to the people of Israel that John testified about the coming Messiah, that “all [i.e., all the people of Israel] should be believing through it.” But did John believe that everyone in Israel would, in fact, believe in Christ? And did John believe that every Israelite in his day would be receiving the salvation that he had in view in John 1:29? To better understand which category of people in the world John the baptist believed would have their sin taken away by Christ, let’s consider Jesus’ words in John 6:33 and 51:

“…for the Bread of God is He Who is descending out of heaven and giving life to the world.

“If anyone should be eating of this Bread, he shall be living for the eon. Now the Bread also, which I shall be giving for the sake of the life of the world, is My flesh.”

In light of the words, “he shall be living for the eon,” the “life” which Christ had in view in these verses (i.e., the life which he would be giving “to the world”) should be understood as the future blessing which is elsewhere referred to as “life eonian.” This is clear not only from the immediate context in which these verses appear (see the references to eonian life in John 6:27, 40, 47, 54 and 68), but also from the broader context of John’s Account as well. Consider, for example, John 3:14-18:

And, according as Moses exalts the serpent in the wilderness, thus must the Son of Mankind be exalted, that everyone believing on Him should not be perishing, but may be having life eonian. For thus God loves the world, so that He gives His only-begotten Son, that everyone who is believing in Him should not be perishing, but may be having life eonian. For God does not dispatch His Son into the world that He should be judging the world, but that the world may be saved through Him. He who is believing in Him is not being judged; yet he who is not believing has been judged already, for he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.”

In this passage we see that God’s love for the world is expressed through the giving of his only-begotten Son, with the express purpose being ”that everyone who is believing in Him should not be perishing, but may be having life eonian.” It should be noted that, in this passage, God’s love for the world is not connected with his intent to save all mankind (even though this is his ultimate purpose, as we find revealed in Paul’s letters). Rather, in this passage, God’s love for the world is connected with his intent to save “everyone who is believing in [his Son].” These words presuppose that not everyone in the world would, in fact, believe in Christ and receive “life eonian.” Instead, the clear implication is that unbelievers will “be perishing.”

Concerning the nature of this “perishing,” Christ declared in John 8:51: “Verily, verily, I am saying to you, If anyone should be keeping My word, he should under no circumstances be beholding death for the eon.” And in John 10:27-28 we read, “My sheep are hearing My voice, and I know them, and they are following Me. And I am giving them life eonian, and they should by no means be perishing for the eon…”  
The “perishing” that Christ had in view in John 3:16 should, therefore, be understood as being concurrent with the “life eonian” he had in view. Moreover, it’s also clear that the salvation that is in view in the words “that the world may be saved through Him” is the receiving of “life eonian” (and the avoidance of “perishing for the eon”). That is, the meaning of these words can be expressed as follows: “…that the world may be having life eonian through Him.”

In light of the fact that the “life” which Christ declared he would be “giving to the world” is life eonian, let’s now compare Christ’s words in John 6:33 with the words of John the Baptist in John 1:29:

“…for the Bread of God is He Who is descending out of heaven and giving life to the world.

“Lo! the Lamb of God Which is taking away the sin of the world!

Since the words “giving life to the world” refer to Christ’s giving life eonian to those in the world who are believing in him, we can reasonably conclude that the words “taking away the sin of the world” refer to Christ’s taking away the sin of those in the world who are believing in him. John the Baptist was not, in other words, referring to the salvation of every person on the planet without exception, or to everyone who will ever live. The “sin of the world” that John believed would be taken away by Christ is the sin of everyone in the world (particularly those in Israel, on whom John’s ministry was focused) who believe in Christ. It is these who, because of their faith in Christ, will “be having life eonian” (as opposed to “perishing for the eon”).  

This understanding of John’s words in 1:29 is further confirmed by what John the Baptist declared elsewhere. From what we read in Matthew 3:1-12, it’s clear that the focus of John’s preparatory ministry was on the eon-terminating events that will usher in the kingdom of God on earth (and the eonian state of affairs resulting from these events). It was with a view toward the coming kingdom that John admonished the Israelites of his day to repent, in order that they might make themselves ready for it. This future eschatological event will involve the “weeding out” of unrighteous Israelites from the land, and the salvation of the righteous. According to John, the righteous among God’s covenant people were to be baptized by Christ “in the holy spirit” and gathered like grain “into his barn.” It is these whom John understood would be saved by Christ, the Lamb of God. The rest, however, are to be baptized “in fire,” and – like chaff – are to be burned up by Christ “with unextinguishable fire.” Given the repentance-based focus of John the Baptist’s preparatory ministry, I submit that it’s far more likely that John believed that “the sin of the world” that Christ would be taking away was the sin of those in the world who, through faith in Christ, were being given “the right to become children of God.”





[1] Although most translations of this verse read, “the Lord will not cast off forever,” a more accurate translation would be, For Yahweh is not casting off for the eon” (as found in the Concordant Version of the Old Testament). When we try to apply this verse to every person who has ever lived or will live, it becomes a false statement (for not all humans – or even all Israelites – will be enjoying God’s favor and blessings during the eon to come).

[2] The only way Acts 3:21 could be understood as supporting the doctrine of the salvation of all is if the “holy prophets” referred to by Peter actually prophesied concerning this truth. But that’s the very thing that needs to be proved by those appealing to Acts 3:21 in support of the doctrine of universal salvation.

[3] For those not familiar with the scriptural subject of the eons, the following summary may be helpful: The eons are relatively long spans of time (past, present and future) which have a beginning and an end. We read, for example, of past eons (Romans 16:25; 1 Corinthians 2:7; 10:11; Ephesians 3:9; Col 1:26, Hebrews 9:26), of a present eon (Matthew 12:32; 13:40; 24:3; 1 Corinthians 2:6-8; Galatians 1:4), and of future eons to follow this present eon (Mark 10:30; Matthew 12:32; 13:40; 24:3; Luke 18:30; Ephesians 1:21; 2:7; Jude 1:25). It’s also clear from what is said concerning the past eons that they are limited in number, for we read that there was a time before the eons began (1 Corinthians 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2). We also read of the consummation of the eons (1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 9:26), which indicates that the succession of eons revealed in scripture has an end as well as a beginning. This is further confirmed from the fact that the future eons referred to (e.g., in Ephesians 2:7) are the eons for which Christ will be reigning. And – as argued elsewhere (see, for example, my article on the expression “forever and ever” and the follow-up article) – we know that Christ’s reign is not going to continue endlessly, but will terminate when he has accomplished all that his God and Father has appointed and empowered him to do.

[4] Although what’s being promised in Rev. 21:5 is certainly consistent with the truth of the reconciliation of all to God (and could even be understood as “pointing toward” this truth), it’s not necessary to believe that John – or the original recipients of his prophetic work – understood the “all” to include anything that won’t be in existence when the last eon of Christ’s reign begins.

9 comments:

  1. Perhaps John the Baptist's and Jesus'use of the word "world" was limited in scope, but have you ever considered that the Apostle John might have expanded the scope to include the entire world without limitation? Please consider the possibility that the Apostle John may have had Gentiles in mind when he wrote his gospel. By Gentiles, I mean real Gentiles and not simply Jews in the diaspora. For example, in John 1 for starters, the Apostle John explains what the word "Rabbi" means in verse 38 and "Messiah" in verse 41. Surely those in the diaspora would know what these words meant. Likewise in John 6:4 he explains that "Passover" is a feast of the Jews. Again, those in the diaspora would not need this explanation, especially since they were Jews. It seems that the Apostle John intended for his gospel to be read by Gentiles, or at the very least knew or expected them to read it at some point in time. I think there are some articles on this topic by Ernest L. Martin on his askelm.com website.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi GG, thanks for the comment.

      My position is actually perfectly consistent with the view that John wrote his gospel account with the understanding and intent that at least some of those reading his account would, in fact, be "real Gentiles." I'm sure John knew and anticipated that at least some future readers of his account would be either "God fearers" (like Cornelius and his household were), or would become "God fearers" after coming to believe the truth that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (which, as we read in John 20:31, is the very reason John wrote his account). But the fact remains that the word "world" in John's account - irrespective of whether or not it was spoken by John the Baptist or Christ, or simply included in John's own inspired comments - does not refer to all people without exception.

      For example, we find several references to the "world" in John 3:16-21, and a number of scholars believe that these verses are John's own commentary (rather than the words of Christ). But even here, the truth of universal salvation is not found. The salvation in view here is clearly "life eonian" (i.e., life during one, or both, of the eons of Christ's future reign). Regardless of whether John expected some (or even many) "real Gentiles" to come to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the salvation that John believed they would receive as a result of their belief in Christ pertains to Israel's earthly, covenant-based expectation, and NOT to the salvation that ALL MANKIND will enjoy at the consummation (i.e., when death is abolished and all are vivified in Christ). Not only does the salvation referred to in these verses (and elsewhere in John's account) NOT refer to the salvation of all mankind, but - as I've argued in greater depth elsewhere on my blog - it doesn't even refer to the salvation that belongs to believers in the body of Christ (see, for example, my article "John’s expectation and doctrinal position concerning salvation": http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/11/johns-expectation-and-doctrinal.html).

      Delete
  2. Thanks for your explanation, Aaron. I will read your article on John's expectation and doctrinal position.

    I can't remember exactly, but perhaps it was Charles Welch who suggested that John's gospel was intended (or at least partially intended) for those who were not granted an understanding of what Paul taught. Accordingly, many Christians today would fall under the scope of John's gospel. Of course, their calling and expectation would be different from those who, by grace, have received an understanding of Paul’s gospel. My understanding is that, if what Welch wrote is true, the vast majority of Christians today have a calling and allotment that finds its fulfillment in Israel’s promises, and perhaps they will be of those who make up the believing Gentiles during the kingdom age.

    Having said that, my current position is more inclusive that Welch’s, as a don't presently see the rigid rules that would have to exist to include some but exclude others from the eonian life that accords with Paul's gospel. In other words, I tend to believe that people today who believe John’s gospel (for example, John 3:16) still become members of the body of Christ. After all, nearly all Christians today acknowledge Paul’s writings, but simply lack a correct understanding of some very important fundamentals. My guess is that when someone believes John 3:16, he or she has 1 Corinthians 15:3 in mind to some extent, despite not grasping the breadth of its purport. At least that was my initial conversion experience. However, years later, by the grace of God, I made great advances in my understanding of what Paul wrote.

    And I suppose that everyone is on this journey. For example, many among the Corinthians didn't even believe in the resurrection, but that didn't exclude them. Also, in Paul's letter to the Ephesians, he prayed in Chapter 1 that they would receive the spirit of revelation and understanding so that they could gain an understanding of the hope of their calling. In Philippians 3:15-16, Paul speaks of those who were otherwise minded, but simply prayed that God would grant them understanding and encouraged them to walk in the same mind according to what they had attained. As R.B. Withers used to say, "nobody has a monopoly on truth."

    I believe that many of the disparities in understanding that exist today will be settled at the bema of Christ where some will receive great rewards and wages, while others forfeit their wages.

    In general, I am rigid regarding the content of the gospel, but soft regarding its application.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure I follow you, GG. The gospel found in John's account involves less information than the gospel that was entrusted to Paul to herald among the nations (i.e., the gospel referred to in 1 Cor. 15:3-4). As I've argued in greater depth elsewhere (see, for example, the following article: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/10/revisiting-two-evangels-controversy.html), believing “in the name [i.e., in the identity] of the only-begotten Son of God” (John 3:16-18) simply means believing that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31; cf. Matt. 16:15-17). This is the gospel through which those pre-designated by God for life eonian on the earth are called, and which they must believe in order to enjoy an allotment in the kingdom that is going to be restored to Israel after Christ's return. And any righteous-acting, God-fearing Gentiles who are called by God through this gospel (as Cornelius and his household were) are necessarily called to the expectation that saved Gentiles will have on the earth during the eon to come (as we find briefly described in, for example, Ezek. 47:21-23).

      Remember, it is God who calls people through a particular gospel to a particular expectation. So if one is called by God through the gospel of 1 Cor. 15:3-4, they will be given the faith to believe the truths concerning Christ by which this particular gospel is constituted. You say your guess is that when someone believes John 3:16, they will have 1 Cor. 15 "in mind to some extent." But by believing the gospel found in 1 Cor. 15, one is necessarily believing something MORE than the gospel referred to in John 3:16 (which, again, is the truth concerning Jesus' Messianic identity). Now, it's certainly possible that God could use John 3:16 to REMIND someone of the truth found in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 (assuming they'd previously heard this gospel), and that this could, in turn, result in them actually believing the gospel of 1 Cor. 15. But even in these circumstances, the gospel through which the person is being called by God would be the gospel of 1 Cor. 15 and NOT "merely" the gospel concerning Jesus' Messianic identity.

      (Continued below)

      Delete
    2. I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind when you refer to certain "very important fundamentals." However, if you're referring to the essential elements that actually constitute the gospel of 1 Cor. 15:3-4 (and through which God calls people to the expectation associated with the body of Christ), then I would simply say that God will give to whoever he calls through this gospel the faith to believe these essential elements. You claim that "many among the Corinthians didn't even believe in the resurrection." Well, to be more precise, Paul wrote, "...how are SOME among you saying that there is no resurrection of the dead?" But even if this "some" constituted the majority within the ecclesia in Corinth, Paul's response to their error doesn't imply that they'd NEVER believed in the resurrection. Another possible scenario is that, after having previously believed the truth concerning Christ's resurrection, they'd subsequently been led astray (and had come to reject a truth they'd previously accepted).

      In fact, it's not even clear that they had rejected the truth of Christ's own resurrection, since Paul appealed to this very truth in support of the truth that they denied (1 Cor. 15:12-19). Paul's argument seems to presuppose that, despite their confusion on the subject of the resurrection, they had previously believed (if they did not still believe) that Christ himself had been roused. So I think it's reasonable to conclude that the "some" whom Paul had in view had previously been called through the gospel of which he reminded them in 1 Cor. 15:3-4, and had previously believed it. And if they hadn't (i.e., if they'd NEVER believed that Christ had been roused), then it would simply mean that they were never believers to begin with (and thus were never among the "saints" to whom Paul wrote this letter). And if they, for whatever reason, were unable to believe the essential elements of the gospel brought to them, then it's simply because they hadn't been predesignated by God and called by him through this gospel. And the same goes for anyone alive today. Perhaps they will instead be called through the gospel found in John's account, and will - like Cornelius and his household - be among those Gentiles who will enjoy eonian life on the earth in the kingdom that is going to be restored to Israel. In any event, it's God's call. He's the one who gives people the faith to believe whatever they need to believe in order to be saved in accord with whatever expectation to which he calls them.

      Aaron

      Delete
    3. Thank you for your detailed response. This discussion has been productive for me.

      I agree with you. As you said, it is God who decides and if He wants someone in the body of Christ, then He will certainly give them the grace to believe the gospel entrusted to Paul.

      I guess my point of contention is in regard to where the line is in the sand regarding who is in the body of Christ. From God's point of view, it is easy. He simply knows. But from our point of view, there is definitely a gray zone of uncertainty. And this impacts how we relate to others and how we evaluate others in respect to these things. For example, nearly all Christians in the mainstream churches would confess that Christ died for their sins. However, we know that the mainstream churches do not understand that "Christ died for our sins" means that Christ is literally the Savior of all. Furthermore, most mainstream churches do not understand the sovereignty of God or that salvation is a gift by grace, despite their insistence that they do believe the latter. So, on the one hand, they do confess that Christ died for their sins, but on the other hand, hold onto contradictory confessions that deny the power of the gospel.

      In Corinthians, Paul mentions that some of them did not have the knowledge of God (15:35). (I do believe that "some" probably referred to "many," although not a "majority." If "some" were really a "few," then Paul probably wouldn't have addressed the problem in so much detail and would have rather let the local ecclesia deal with it.) Now, I agree with you 100% that they might have had the knowledge and then forgot it or even abandoned it. We know from 2 Timothy 2:13 that some people might even abandon the faith altogether. (Regardless, these people are still in the body of Christ because they were foreknown, believed at one point, and were sealed with the Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14).) However, in light of what Paul writes about in Ephesians and Philippians, it seems that some people were much more immature in their understanding than others. In this regard, if someone tells me that they believe that Christ died for their sins, yet still lacks an understanding of the salvation of all and might even believe in free will or works-based salvation, I remain optimistic (to a certain degree), but tread with caution, for only God knows what is going on in that person's heart.

      If we take a hard-line approach, anyone who doesn't understand the salvation of all or that salvation is the gift of God is excluded from the body of Christ. This hard-line approach is a possibility. However, given the examples of varying degrees of faith and understanding set forth in Corinthians, Ephesians, and Philippians, I believe the standard for the body of Christ is probably not so rigid. But only God knows. For me, I contend strongly for the truths of Paul's gospel, but judge softly when it comes to pronouncements regarding who is a member of the body of Christ. As a result, I tend to have a more soft-line approach.

      Delete
    4. Hi GG,

      You wrote: "I guess my point of contention is in regard to where the line is in the sand regarding who is in the body of Christ. From God's point of view, it is easy. He simply knows. But from our point of view, there is definitely a gray zone of uncertainty."

      Agreed. Unlike God, we're not infallible, and could be wrong about what others actually believe. However, I think we can give others the "benefit of the doubt" and consider them fellow believers when we have reason to believe that they believe the truth that constitutes the evangel of our salvation (and this knowledge of what others believe can, of course, be acquired either directly or indirectly). But if we know that someone believes something that is incompatible with and contradicts the truth that constitutes the evangel, then I'm not sure how we can consider them a fellow believer.

      There are, of course, many false ideas to which people hold that DON'T contradict the truth of the gospel. But assuming that the gospel through which we're saved is constituted by any knowable/understandable truths at all (and that those called by God through this gospel have been given the faith to believe the knowable/understandable truths that constitute it), then it follows that there are beliefs that contradict it. And if one believes this, then I'm not sure how one can also deny that there are ideas/beliefs which can (and do) prevent people from believing the truth that constitutes the gospel.

      If, for example, the truth that "Christ died for our sins" is incompatible with the belief that our salvation is up to us, or that some for whom Christ died will never be saved, then we have good reason to believe that someone who holds to such gospel-contradicting beliefs (regardless of how sincere they are in their beliefs) is not a member of the body of Christ. Or, if we have good reason to believe that they USED to believe the truth, then we'd be justified in believing that they've simply withdrawn from the faith and - despite having been justified - are (in accord with 2 Tim. 2:13) now "disbelieving."

      You wrote, "If "some" were really a "few," then Paul probably wouldn't have addressed the problem in so much detail and would have rather let the local ecclesia deal with it."

      Perhaps, but perhaps not. It's possible that it was the failure of the local ecclesia to deal with the problem that required Paul's response. Perhaps it was a leader within the ecclesia who was asking Paul for help in dealing with the problem. And perhaps Paul knew that "a little leaven" could end up "leavening the whole kneading" (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9), and that, over time, a few could end up negatively influencing many. We just don't know for sure.

      (continued below)

      Delete
    5. You wrote: "Now, I agree with you 100% that they might have had the knowledge and then forgot it or even abandoned it. We know from 2 Timothy 2:13 that some people might even abandon the faith altogether. (Regardless, these people are still in the body of Christ because they were foreknown, believed at one point, and were sealed with the Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14).)"

      Agreed!

      You wrote: "However, in light of what Paul writes about in Ephesians and Philippians, it seems that some people were much more immature in their understanding than others. In this regard, if someone tells me that they believe that Christ died for their sins, yet still lacks an understanding of the salvation of all and might even believe in free will or works-based salvation, I remain optimistic (to a certain degree), but tread with caution, for only God knows what is going on in that person's heart."

      I agree completely that, within the body of Christ, some people are much more immature in their understanding than others. And while I'm sympathetic toward your position, I also believe there's a big difference between having a deficient understanding of non-essential doctrine (which ultimately consists of everything except the gospel itself), and holding to beliefs that directly contradict, and are incompatible with, the truth of the gospel. When you speak of someone who tells you that they believe that Christ died for their sins while also believing things that you know directly contradict this truth, I can't help but conclude that what they profess to believe is not what they actually believe. It's like a pantheist saying "I believe in God" while in their heart believing that "God" is simply the universe, and denying the existence of the personal God revealed in Scripture. In such a case as this, the person professing faith in God couldn't really be considered a believer in God (at least, according to verses such as Heb. 11:6).

      When one is given faith by God to believe the evangel through which one is called (including "the evangel of the Circumcision"), this faith necessarily involves faith in the truth (2 Thess.11-14), and coming into a realization of the truth. So I'm honestly not sure how faith in the evangel could possibly exist apart from SOME degree of knowledge/understanding of the truth of the evangel, or how, after being given the faith to believe the evangel, someone could remain just as ignorant of the truth of the evangel as they were prior to believing it. Just as unbelief concerning the truth necessarily involves blinded apprehensions (2 Cor. 4:3-4) and some degree of ignorance/lack of understanding (Acts 28:23-27; Rom. 10:2-4), so faith/belief necessarily involves, and cannot exist apart from, SOME degree of knowledge/understanding. Could I be wrong about this? Certainly. But I have yet to come across a compelling enough objection to this understanding of faith to lead me to believe otherwise.

      Delete
    6. I thought about your response carefully.

      You said, "And if one believes this, then I'm not sure how one can also deny that there are ideas/beliefs which can (and do) prevent people from believing the truth that constitutes the gospel."

      Very good point! And this is something I think I have overlooked. Yes, some of the beliefs that people hold can and do prevent them from believing the truth that constitutes the gospel.

      Along the same lines, you said, "When you speak of someone who tells you that they believe that Christ died for their sins while also believing things that you know directly contradict this truth, I can't help but conclude that what they profess to believe is not what they actually believe."

      I agree. However, in the case of the salvation of all, many people have been blinded by bad Bible translations that teach eternal punishment and hell, especially in non-English speaking countries. Now, sometimes I think this blindness can be self inflicted, or perhaps it is just human nature in general. For example, people tend to emphasize bad news over good news. In the case of the gospel, the good news is overshadowed by the bad news of hell. And this tendency leads to unbelief. But those bad translations may be our present-day stumblingstones, just like the Jews of Jesus' day had their own stumblingstones, such as thinking Jesus was born in Nazareth, etc. As we know, in the case of the Jews, stumbling due to a misunderstanding was no excuse for unbelief. And it very well could be the same with our present-day stumblingstones. Regardless of bad translations, there is no excuse for doubting the love and goodness of God. In the case of you and I, we have been blessed by translations such as Young's Literal and Concordant, as well as the ability to study Greek or use an interlinear. But others, especially in non-English speaking countries, don't have these privileges. For them, I guess it really comes down to: "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." However, I often wonder if God will apply the rule of leniency: "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

      I have enjoyed this discussion. Our initial topic was about word "world" in John, and I suppose I should have been more careful not to side-track that discussion. In the future, I might pursue that topic with you a little more as I still have some points for your consideration.

      Delete