Challenging Mainstream Christian Beliefs

Three prominent beliefs regarding salvation, held by most mainstream church-goers, and supported by texts from popular versions of the Bible, provide a real challenge for thinking Christians. They are:

1.  God wants to save all people.

(God) intends all human beings to be saved and to come to a full knowledge of the truth.
[1 Timothy 2 : 4  DBH]
The Lord isn't slow about keeping his promises, as some people think he is. In fact, God is patient, because he wants everyone to turn from sin and no one to be lost.
[2 Peter 3 : 9  CEV]

2.  God is all powerful, so always gets what He wants.

Our God is in heaven, he does whatever pleases him.
[Psalm 115 : 3  NIV]
We may make a lot of plans, but the LORD will do what he has decided.
[Proverbs 19 : 21  CEV]

3.  Unbelievers will be lost forever.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.
[John 3 : 36  NIV]
He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.  They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might
[2 Thessalonians 1 : 8, 9  NIV]

Now let's put on our thinking caps.
How can all three be true at the same time?
How can we believe that God wants to save everyone, always achieves what He wants, yet many (most?) people will be lost forever?
As a set, the three statements are inconsistent.
A bit like this set of three:
1 + 2 = 3.  2 + 1 = 3.  2 + 2 = 3.  They can't all be true at the same time.

Let's see how others handle this problem before I share how I do.

There are some Christians, who follow the teachings of John Calvin, a French theologian whose views became the basis of Calvinism, who believe the second and third statements to be true, so challenge the first statement.

They believe that God wants to save only those He has chosen to save (modified statement 1),
that He will achieve what He wants (statement 2),
so the remainder, the unchosen, will be lost forever (statement 3).

There are other Christians, the majority in my experience, who follow the teachings of Jacob Arminius, a Dutch theologian whose views became the basis of Arminianism, who believe the first and third statements to be true, so challenge the second statement.

They believe that God wants to save everyone (statement 1),
but God does not achieve what He wants because He has given people freewill which can override His will (modified statement 2),
so those who choose not to be saved will be lost forever (statement 3)

Notice that statement 3 (unbelievers will be lost forever) is always held to be true regardless of which Christian group anyone belongs to.
It is the only non-negotiable belief in the vast majority of Christendom, so other beliefs have to be adjusted to accommodate it.

Yet for me, this is the statement that needs to be challenged.
Not because I don't like it (although that is true), but because it is not what the Bible teaches.
Indeed, the Biblical texts which are used to support statement 3 are not correct translations of the Greek text from which they come.

Let's examine the supporting texts for statement 3 from above.
Firstly John 3 : 36.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.
[John 3 : 36  NIV]

If I use a literal translation for this text, I get the following:

He who has faith in the Son has the life of that Age; and the one rejecting the Son will not see (that) life, but God's ire rests upon him.
[John 3 : 36  DBH]
He who is believing in the Son has life eonian, yet he who is stubborn as to the Son shall not be seeing (that) life, but the indignation of God is remaining on him.
[John 3 : 36  CLV]
he who is believing in the Son, hath life age-during; and he who is not believing the Son, shall not see (that) life, but the wrath of God doth remain upon him.
[John 3 : 36  YLT]

The literal translations show that eternal life is NOT being addressed in this verse (and verses like it), but life in the Age, life in the millennial Kingdom.

Secondly 2 Thessalonians 1: 8, 9.

He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.  They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 
[2 Thess 1 : 8, 9  NIV]

If I use a literal translation for this text, those not seeing life in that Age are:

... those who do not know God and do not heed the good tidings of our Lord Jesus - who will pay the just reparation of ruin in the Age, coming from the face of the Lord and the glory of his might
[2 Thess 1 : 8, 9  DBH]
... those who are not acquainted with God and those who are not obeying the evangel of our Lord Jesus Christ who shall incur the justice of eonian extermination from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of His strength
[ 2 Thess 1 :8, 9  CLV]
... those not knowing God, and to those not obeying the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall suffer justice — destruction age-during — from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his strength,
[2 Thess 1 : 8, 9  YLT]

Again, missing out on life in the Millennium in the Lord's presence is the loss worn by unbelievers. It is not eternal destruction.

It is only believers who have been chosen to live and rule with Christ during the age of the millennium kingdom.

However, the unbelievers, who have not been chosen for that role and responsibility, will be raised at the consummation of the ages when death is destroyed (1 Corinthians 15 : 26) and God becomes "everything to everyone" (1 Cor 15 : 28) so that God's plan "to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ" (Ephesians 1 : 10) is completed.

To help convey the correctly translated Scriptures supporting statement 3, I would re-word it so that the set, as a whole, becomes consistent.

Here's the result:
Statement 1 - God wants to save all people. (agreed - it's a good summation of its supporting texts)
Statement 2 - God is all powerful, so always gets what He wants. (agreed - it's a good summation of its supporting texts)
Statement 3 - Unbelievers will not see the millennial kingdom. (agreed - it's a good summation of its correctly translated supporting texts)

Blessings, Barry

The idea for this BLOG was inspired by the theological and philosophical discussions of Thomas Talbott, Professor of Philosophy in USA, in his book "The Inescapable Love of God" published in 1999, and referenced by Gregory MacDonald in his book "The Evangelical Universalist" in 2006. (Gregory MacDonald is a pseudonym for Robin Parry, Professor of Systematic Theology in USA.)

Science Re-Captures a Glimpse of God

Special Creation (the belief that the origin of the universe and all of life came into being by divine decree) was a feature of the predominant worldview in the time when some of our great scientists of the past lived.

For example, Sir Isaac Newton in writing about the planetary system said, "Though these bodies may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." 
(note the capital B)

Biologists also, before Darwin that is, thought that the study of life gave the appearance of having been purposefully designed.

But Darwin caused the whole discipline to change direction.
Darwin's famous "Origin of Species" was a long argument against creation by design, promoting the theory that all living things were produced by unguided natural forces from a common source. 
In fact he was quoted as saying, "I would give absolutely nothing for my theory of natural selection, if it require miraculous additions at any one stage of descent." 

Typical modern Biology textbooks include statements like "By coupling the undirected, purposeless variations to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made the theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. 
(Douglas Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology" College Text)

However, science is beginning to show signs of realising the limits of space-time based explorations.

In 1953, the discovery of DNA opened some eyes.
Not only does DNA contain information, but functional information not dissimilar to computer software code.
BIll Gates, Microsoft pioneer, said that "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created".

In 1996, Michael Behe, a university biochemist, published a book titled "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" which focused on biological systems which are 'irreducibly complex' at the molecular level and could not have been developed slowly over long periods of time.

Even modern neo-Darwinists admit that undirected natural selection and random mutation can produce organs and structures that give 'the appearance' of having been designed.

The Center for Science and Culture in Seattle, Washington was founded in 1990 and describes itself as "the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design".

Dr Stephen Meyer, philosopher of science and director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, publicly claims that Intelligent Design is detectable by science, and has written two books, "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design: and "Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design" to advance his argument.

However, let's be clear.
The sort of evolution that is being challenged by most proponents of Intelligent Design is Darwinianism, not the 'small changes over time' type of evolution, nor the small adaptations due to environmental changes (microevolution), nor even the production of new species from a common ancestor (macroevolution).

But Darwinianism, chance macroevolution, which asserts that all organisms, including mankind, descended from a common ancestor without any input, either at its beginning or on the journey, from an intelligent source.

Such is the fleeting glimpse of God currently being seen: there's still a long way to go to get back to the view of our great scientists of the past. 

However if scientists continue to be brave enough to be honest about what they see in the science they explore, especially at the molecular level, their influence might spread widely...

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. so that people are without excuse.
[Romans 1 : 20  NIV]

Of course, I have omitted mentioning the many Creation Scientists who have either never been Darwinianists, or have transferred from that camp as they became Bible-believing Christians during their careers. 
Creation Ministries International is staffed by several of these men and women and https://creation.com is a great website to visit and explore evidence and arguments for special creation.

Blessings, Barry