Unsearchable
Riches
March, 2002; Volume
XCIII Number 2
Questions and Answers
IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, WE MUST BE SAVED
Question:
I believe that God, in His justice, will subject the lost—which is to say the non-elect—to endless punishment for their sins, albeit to a punishment consisting not of endless torment but of permanent death.
Likewise, the gospel is that Christ died for our sins, that is, for the sins of the elect. Christ's work on the cross was designed to save the elect alone, who are saved by grace alone, and who alone will be saved, though not apart from faith in the gospel.
Since you too, as a universalist, like the Arminians, do not believe the gospel, you, too, are unsaved, and will remain unsaved and perish for eternity unless you repent and believe the gospel.
In correspondence to the above considerations, I also believe that the dictates of justice are determinative of the acts of love, not that the dictates of love are determinative of the acts of justice. Therefore, whatever God does is right; this includes all instances in which He, in love, grants blessing, and, all instances in which He, in accord with His will and purpose, instead, imposes punishment. Accordingly, then, I would ask you this: To be righteous, does God have to save any body?
Answer:
IN REPLY to your statements and question, let me first say
that I agree with you in several important points.
Certainly you are correct in your finding that the final
adversative judgment of Scripture, to which all the lost will be committed, is
that of death, not conscious torment, endlessly experienced.
The only question is whether death is to be the destiny of
the lost temporarily or permanently. When considering their fate insofar
as this is contemplated in John's vision of the new earth, we acknowledge that,
"their part is in the lake burning with fire and sulphur, which is the
second death" (Rev.21:8).
This fact notwithstanding, however, there is no reason to
conclude that therefore this is their final destiny, claiming thus that since,
here, it is their lot to be subjected to the second death, therefore the second
death will always be their portion Indeed, even if John's vision of the
new earth (Revelation 21, 22) were the only scriptural revelation pertinent to
this question, it would still be wrong to insist that the lost will never be
delivered from the second death. Instead, in that case, we could only say
that the Scripture does not inform us whether or not they will one day be
delivered therefrom.
Likewise, and with much enthusiasm, I join you in acclaiming
the gospel that Christ died for our sins, we who are His elect, or
chosen ones (I Cor.15:3; cf Rom.8:28-33). The apostle Paul
does indeed hereby declare "the evangel of [our] salvation" (cf
Eph.1:13), not some other message of glad tidings, concerned with a different
theme.
Accordingly, I certainly agree with you in your affirmation
that the elect are saved by grace alone, even as in your further testimony that
their salvation by grace alone is not apart from faith in the gospel.
God truly chooses us, singling us out from the
rest. He does so in His grace, according to His purpose Even though He has
not disclosed to us His specific reasons for choosing us instead of others, we
do know that before the disruption of the world, He chose us (
Eph.1:4).
Salvation is not a matter of reciprocity, but of gracious
blessing. Under Paul's evangel, it is not that we are required to believe
or to live uprightly, but that we are privileged to do so, each in the measure
appointed unto him. We cannot boast either in our faith or in our good
works. Our faith is a gracious gift (Phil.1:29), not a requirement to be
saved. Our good works are not a "ticket" giving us the right to
salvation, but a provision of God, which He makes ready beforehand that we should be walking in them (Eph.2:10).
The evangel of our salvation, however, is not the only
evangel of salvation revealed in Scripture. And, while it is true that we
are God's "elect" and that we alone enjoy the blessings thereof,
election has reference to eonian life, life in the oncoming eons (cf
Acts 13:48; 1Tim.1:16; Eph.2:7). It does not preclude blessing
beyond the eons for those who, with reference to eonian life, are indeed the
"non-elect."
It is ironic the Calvinists who, unlike Arminians, enjoy the
great truth of their own election in grace, have nevertheless seen fit to endow
the phrase "the non-elect" with the notion of eternal
reprobation.
I strongly object to this common practice of Calvinists in
which they glibly speak of the "non-elect" as being non-elect with
respect to salvation itself—as if this very term entailed preclusion from
salvation for all persons thus identified. It does not follow simply
because God does not "elect" to bless a certain man with vivification
at a certain point in time, that He will therefore never bless him thus at all,
at any point in time.
All scriptural references which are concerned with the elect
and their particular salvation are confined to blessings of the oncoming eons;
they do not address issues of vivification at the consummation of life
subsequent thereunto. Therefore, it is begging the question to argue as if
the question were already settled in the negative whether all will finally be
saved inasmuch as there are those who may justly be termed "the
non-elect."
Indeed, as God's chosen ones, we—and we alone—are
saved from indignation (Rom.5:9), and for life eonian
(Rom.5:21). But we should not conclude since the not-elect will not enjoy
life eonian, that they will therefore never be delivered from death. The
question is not, Is there a second death? but, Will death be
abolished?
The answer to this vital question is explicitly declared by
the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:26: "The last enemy is being
abolished: death." Even as President Lincoln's emancipation
proclamation which decreed the abolition of slavery entailed the deliverance
from slavery for all those formerly enslaved, thus also, the apostle Paul's
grand pronouncement decreeing the abolition of death, entails the deliverance
from death for all those who were formerly dead.
There can be no question that Paul's vision of "the
consummation" (1 Cor.15:23), at which juncture death will be abolished (1
Cor.15:26), contemplates a time subsequent to that of John's vision of the new
earth, recorded in Revelation 21, 22. This is because at the time
envisioned by John, Christ is still reigning (cp Rev.11:15), and the
saints of that allotment are continuing to reign as well (Rev.22:5b). Likewise,
in that day, the second death is still extant (cp Rev.20:15;
21:8).
Paul, however, in speaking of the consummation, envisions a
day which, of necessity, is subsequent to the time of John's vision. This
is because, in that still later day to which Paul refers us, Christ will no
longer be reigning (cf "whenever He may be giving up the
kingdom [i.e., the 'reign']....He must be reigning until He should be
placing all His enemies under His feet"; 1 Cor.15:24,25). Similarly,
it is evident that the saints of the new earth, by that time, will have ceased
to reign as well, for Christ will then nullify all sovereignty and all
authority and power (1 Cor.15:24).
Accordingly, while at the time contemplated in John's vision,
death is still present (Rev.21:8; even though even in that day no more
will be added to the dead; cp "death will be no more";
Rev. 21:4), in the day perceived by Paul, which is "the consummation"
(1 Cor.15:23), death will be abolished. And, as noted above, this entails
deliverance from death for all those formerly dead.
"The consummation" is the day in which God's great
work of vivifying all (1 Tim.6:13) will finally be realized. Not only does
"the consummation" speak of a day in which "vivification"
will occur (which is to say, that glorious life of which Christ is the
Firstfruit; 1 Cor. 15:23a), but it speaks of the day in which the remainder of
those who will enjoy this blessing will be granted it: "in Christ, shall
all be vivified. Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit [of
vivification], Christ; thereafter the consummation [of vivification shall
occur], whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father..."
(1 Cor.15:22-24).
We are told that, "even as, in Adam, all are
dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified" (1
Cor.15:22).
As we have explicated in a previous writing,1
the
usage of "in" in these phrases is instrumental (as in, "In you
[i.e., Abraham], shall all the nations be blessed"; Gal.3:8; or, "in
Christ is it [the old covenant] being nullified"; 2 Cor.3:14); it is not
locative (as in, "[those] who...came to be in Christ before me";
Rom.16:7).
As stated in that article: The instrumental usage of
"in" in the phrase, "in Christ shall all be vivified" (1
Cor.15:22), reveals how we are vivified (we are vivified, "in
Him").
Indeed, the phrase, "in Christ is it being
nullified" is parallel to, "in Christ shall all be
vivified." "In Christ, shall all be vivified," then, no more
means "those who are in Christ shall be vivified," than "in
Christ is it being nullified," means "those who are in Christ is it
being nullified," which, means nothing at all.
It should be noted that in 1 Corinthians 15:22, Paul does not
say, "all in Adam" and "all in Christ," but, "in Adam,
all," and "in Christ, all." It is unconscionable to reverse
the scriptural syntax as so many do, when interpreting this passage. It is
unconscionable as well, when the apostle's words already express a clear thought
as they stand, to revise his words so as to express a different clear
thought than his clear thought.
We may not change the scripture syntax when by so doing we
change the scripture sense. The syntax we are considering is the syntax of
these scriptural phrases in question in 1 Corinthians 15:22, "in Adam,
all..." and, "in Christ, all...." The words "in Adam"
and "in Christ," are prepositional phrases. Prepositional
phrases may be used as adverbs or as adjectives. When we say, "in
Christ, shall all be vivified," we are using the words "in
Christ" adverbially, so that "in Christ" modifies
"vivified." Such a construction answers the question how, or
where, all shall be vivified. The sense is: "all [in this
case, all mankind] shall be vivified," but they shall be vivified,
"in Christ [i.e., not otherwise or elsewhere]."
The non-scriptural construction, however, "all in
Christ," presents us with a different thought from that of the scriptural
syntax, "in Christ, all." And, as it is popularly understood,
this non-scriptural syntax presents an unscriptural thought. In the
construction, "all in Christ," the phrase "in Christ" is
used adjectivally, so that it modifies the adjective (used as a noun)
"all." In this case, the sense is that "the 'in Christ'
all" are "the all" who shall be vivified.
Before we even attempt to judge the sense or scope of such a
phrase, we must realize that such a phrase does not declare Paul's idea.
Whether or not, on other grounds, such a thought, in some sense, may be true,
such a thought is not revealed here.
CHRIST, THE FIRSTFRUIT
The purpose of 1 Corinthians 15:22 is to tell us why it is so
that "through a man came death, [and] through a Man, also,
comes the resurrection of the dead" (verse 21). The text explains
that this is so, "for even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus
also, in Christ, shall all be vivified" (verse 22). The
antecedent, then, for "all" in both clauses of verse 22, is
"man" (i.e., "human"), from the word "human" in
both respective clauses of verse 21. Therefore, the elliptical noun to be
supplied following "all" in both clauses of verse 22 ("in Adam,
all ....", in Christ, all....") is "humans," that is,
"mankind."
The theme which is in view throughout this entire section, to
which Paul makes the extended reply of verses 20-28, is that of the universal
forlornness of all mankind if there is no resurrection of the dead (cp
vs. 12,19). Further, it is in the context not merely of believers, but of all
mankind (v.19), in which Paul declares that Christ is the Firstfruit of
those who are reposing (v.21). "Repose" is the
figure of euphemism by which, in gentleness, we make mention of the dead who are
lying in their graves. Those who died in unbelief are lying in their
graves quite as much as those who died in faith. Hence it is vain to claim
that "the reposing" are confined to dead believers. Clearly, the
expression comprises all the dead, not merely those of a certain
class.
Let us rehearse again the theme that is in view and the
considerations attending it. The overriding theme is the universal
hopelessness of all mankind apart from resurrection. Yet the
marvelous point to note is that while it is indeed the case that, considered in
themselves, the dead are utterly hopeless, Christ is the Firstfruit
(cp Acts 26:23) of a company which comprises all the
dead! Christ, in vivified glory, is the Firstfruit of the
"reposing," that is, of the dead. "Firstfruit" speaks of the
first fruit to ripen and be presented to God (cp Lev.23:10). If the
firstfruit is holy, so are the rest (cp Rom.11:16)....
Christ is the Firstfruit of those who are reposing, "for
since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also,
comes the resurrection of the dead" (v.21). Notice, the subject is
not the resurrection of some certain company among the dead; it is rather simply
the resurrection of "the dead" (literally, the "standing up of
dead ones"). It is the case that through a man came death, and
that through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead, "for
even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all
be vivified" (v.22).
The theme, the hopelessness of mankind apart from
resurrection, is established in verses 12-19. The fact that Christ has
been roused out from among those who are dead as the Firstfruit of the
ones "having been reposed" (literal rendering), is declared in verse
20. That in verses 21 and 22 Paul's subject continues to be all mankind,
is made evident by the overall logical flow of the text. And, that this is
and necessarily continues to be, the true range of his subject, is protected
against all intelligent denial by the subject-maintaining causal conjunctions
"for" at the beginning of both verses 21 and 22.
The fact is that the noun "human" appearing in both
clauses of verse 21, constitutes the identification of the elliptical adjective
"all" appearing in both clauses of verse 22. This makes the
scope of the "all" in both clauses of verse 22, all mankind.
To claim that at least in the second "all" of verse
22 (the all who will be vivified), this refers not to all mankind but
only to all who believe and even then only to all who believe during this life,
is to do extreme violence both to the text and the context.
LOVE AND JUSTICE
You asked, "To be righteous, does God have to
save anybody?" In leading up to this question, you stated that you
believe that, "the dictates of justice are determinative of the acts of
love, not that the dictates of love are determinative of the acts of
justice. Therefore, whatever God does is right; this includes all
instances in which He, in love, grants blessing, and, all instances in which He,
in accord with His will and purpose, instead, imposes
punishment."
Although I think that most of what you say here, in itself,
is quite good, still, I think it is a mistaken perspective to set justice over
love. This is because God is "love" (1 John 4:8), and,
because, though He is just, we are not informed that He is
"justice." It is evident that while God would have us ever
mindful that all that He does is right, He would especially have us realize that
His very essence is that of love (cp 1 Cor.13).
Therefore, I would instead say that neither God's love or
justice needs to be judged by the other. This is because God's love is
righteous, and His righteousness is loving. It is the cross of Christ
which shows this to me.
I wholly concur with you, however, in the principle that whatever
God actually does is right. We are informed by Him as to what is
right; we ourselves are by no means the arbiters of righteousness. Neither
conscience, intuition, nor "the consensus of scholars" is
determinative, either of what is true or of what is right.
It is to be regretted, however, that the adjective
"just" and the noun "justice," for many, have been burdened
with an exceedingly negative connotation. How frequently we are told,
"Since God is just, unrepentant sinners will be punished in hell for
ever." And, "Since God's justice must be satisfied, all
Christ-rejecters must be subjected to the eternal punishment of the
damned."
Of course, since in making such astonishing claims even those
setting them forth are often affected by their sheer horror, they feel
constrained to say at least something in their favor. Since they can
hardly claim that since God is love, it is therefore that the lost will
spend eternity in hell, groping for something to accommodate their need, they
fall back on the claim that since God is just, it is for that reason that
the lost will always be lost, their punishment unremitted for all
eternity.
This is especially ironic since the wider evangel, as it is
set forth in Romans 3, is that since God is just, He sees to the need of
sinners for justification. Since all sinned and are wanting of the glory
of God, every mouth is barred from being righteous in God's sight through works
of law. The entire world, then, must become subject to "the just
verdict of God" concerning this grave situation. What will His
"just verdict" be concerning our awful predicament when all come under
His justice (literally, become "UNDER-JUST" to
Him; Rom.3:19)? We anxiously await His reply:
How glorious! In manifestation of the righteousness
(i.e., justice) of God, His word is not one of malediction but of
blessing. It is a declaration as to "righteousness of God through
Jesus Christ's faith." It is a pronouncement that is "for
all" (and, "on all who are believing")—for there is no
distinction, for all sinned and are wanting of the glory of God.
The evangel, here declared, which is "for all, and on
all who are believing," is the blessing of: "Being justified
gratuitously in [God's] grace, through the deliverance which is in Christ
Jesus" (Rom.3:24; cp3:9-24).
It is in this light that we rejoice even in God's most severe
judgments, since we know that even in judging ("in the day when God will be
judging the hidden things of humanity"), God will be doing so "
according to [lit., DOWN, i.e., based upon] my evangel,
through Jesus Christ" (Rom.2:16). "This Jesus," He it is
Whom God dispatched into the world, that the world may be saved through Him
(John 3:17), He Who is "the lamb of God...taking away the sin of the
world!" John 1:29.
Obviously, then, to answer your question, while we would not
assume a priori 2 that God will (much less, must)
do this or that, even so, now that we have been given faith and have perceived
God's achievement at the cross, we freely say, Yes, "in the name of Jesus
Christ....we must be saved" (Acts 4:10,12). God must
save not only some (your term was "anybody"), and, not only those who
are elect for life eonian, but even all mankind. This is because God, our
Saviour, is also the Saviour of all mankind. He has formed the
decision that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the
truth. Accordingly, Christ is giving Him self a correspondent Ransom
for the sake of all (1 Tim.2:4,6; 4:10). It is in this character
that we rely on the living God (1 Tim.4:9), Who does not lie (Titus 1:2).
Therefore, by the necessity of the consequence, it becomes evident that He must
save not only "somebody," but "everybody."
ASSURANCE OF UNDERSTANDING
You said concerning me, "Since you, too, as a
universalist, like the Arminians, do not believe the gospel, you, to, are
unsaved...."
Since I do, however, believe the evangel that
"Christ died for our sins," which is the evangel to which you refer,
your claim can only truly be that I do not believe your interpretation of
the evangel, which is that Christ died for our sins alone. Now
while I acknowledge that I do not accept your interpretation of the evangel, it
does not follow from this that I do not believe the evangel itself, and so am
not in Christ and remain unsaved. Nor is it so that your interpretation of
the evangel—whether or not it should be correct—is constitutive
of the evangel itself.
Even as various others, you confound believing with
understanding, the declaration of the faith with the interpretation of the
faith. We must all make judgments, which is to say, interpretations, as to
the sense, scope, and corollaries of God's Word. Interpretation is central
to understanding. This is a simple fact, even if some should deny it, fail
to see its significance, or ridicule us for having pointed it out. Indeed,
if we should have any understanding at all as to how any certain declaration is
to be understood, this is only because, wittingly or unwittingly, we have made a
certain judgment as to its sense or interpretation.
Much of the confusion surrounding issues of believing and
understanding, is born out of the unsophisticated notion that one need not
(perhaps even, must not) interpret the Bible in order to understand it.
Then, we have the influence of simplistic aphorisms such as, "the Bible
interprets itself," and, "the Bible says what it means and means what
it says."
Now we agree with and honor much that is meant by such
sayings. Yet the first of these—acknowledging the helpful truth to
which it points—simply overlooks the fact that the reader, nonetheless, must
have the insight rightly to take note of whatever internal governance of
sense Scripture may well afford us in settling any certain question. And
the second of these sayings—acknowledging its higher intent to affirm the
truth of inspiration—in itself, is sheer tautology, if it has any content at
all.
In the case of a short, subjectively simple statement, most
are apt to imagine, "There is nothing to interpret; just believe what it
says." If you think about it, this is surely foolish, besides false
(we recall that it is false when we remember that the question of usage is ever
present). That such a claim is also foolish is evident inasmuch as any
long complex statement is nevertheless comprised of short, discrete parts, many
of which, usually at least, being subjectively simple.
Even short statements, however, including ones universally
recognized as simple, still always call for interpretation. Take for
example: "Greet one another with a holy kiss" (Rom.16:16); and
"Jesus weeps" (John 11:35). While we may have confidence that
our (presumably, literal) interpretations of these normally uncontroversial
statements is correct, that does not make them correct, nor does it make
them anything other than interpretations. This is because it is neither
impossible nor absurd (whether likely or not) that the "kiss was spoken of
in some sort of metaphorical/metonymical way, and that even the
"weeping" was metaphorical, an internal "shedding of tears,"
within the heart. In deed, in speaking of my own sorrows, I have sometimes
spoken of having "wept" over a certain matter in cases where no actual
tears were shed.
Perhaps I can illustrate what I have in mind still more
clearly, by the words of Jesus which have puzzled so many: "Verily, I am
saying to you that by no means may this generation be passing by till all these
things should be occurring" (Matt.24:34).3
Now since this has been a very controversial passage which has
been interpreted in various ways, not many would be apt to say that those
who interpret it differently than themselves, therefore do not believe what it
says. Any of good sense would say instead that while those of opposing
views believe what it says—the statement itself—they misinterpret
what it means—that of which it truly speaks, and the way that that
was intended to be understood. And, in saying this, in the case of the one
holding the correct interpretation of this text, he would be correct in speaking
thus.
In parallel, then, in considering the text, "Christ died
for our sins" (1 Cor.15:3), no one should say that those who interpret it
differently than themselves, do not believe what it says—are unbelievers as
to this declaration—but that they (to some degree) misinterpret its proper
sense. And, in saying this, in the case of the one holding the correct
interpretation of this text, he likewise would be correct in speaking
thus.
Therefore, all who are convinced that the declaration,
"Christ died for our sins" is true, are our fellow believers in
Christ, joint enjoyers of salvation even with ourselves. Concerning either
the term "died," or the phrase "our sins," whether one
should understand Christ's death for our sins as having occurred either
categorically, in every way, or only corporeally, or, for ourselves alone, or
for ourselves as well as for others, is irrelevant insofar as the question of
one's faith in this statement itself is concerned.
Faith is in what is said. Whether or not we should also
understand the sense in which what is said is so, is a separate issue,
one which is irrelevant (i.e., non-determinative) insofar as the question of the
existence of faith itself is concerned.
When an intrinsically-coherent, cognizable proposition has
been declared, and then—the hearer knowing the basic meaning of the words of
which the declaration consists—that same intrinsically-coherent proposition
becomes (1) that of which the hearer is cognizant, and (2) that of which the
hearer is convinced, faith then becomes the portion of the
hearer.
We are mindful that for many these various considerations
will be difficult to grasp, or simply unacceptable. So our prayer is
that God might grant a measure of competency in the discernment of His
Word.
James R. Coram
