I was asked recently about the reformed explanation of the word “all”. Calvinists maintain that the word “all” rarely means every human being that ever lived. Instead they argue that it must mean all types of people, from every tribe, tongue or nation. They use this argument as a way of explaining how the God of Israel is not a bigot but instead loves people from every nation and has chosen some from each to be His particular people, His “elect”. Here is my initial answer to the question. Please add your thoughts…
The “without distinction/without exception” argument was something I was steeped in. As a member of a Reformed church this was the language to explain away all those sweeping promises that used the word all. First I would say that in the grand scheme of things (the overall Story of God, His nature, His purpose and plan) it just doesn’t hold up. However, I believe that initially there IS an exclusive election, first being the Israelites then moving to a chosen people among the nations. But the question is, what are these individuals without distinction elected FOR? God has always made it clear that it was to bless the rest of the world. (Gen.12:1-2) What is the nature of a priest? If there are called and chosen priests from out of every tribe, tongue and nation, who are they to be priests FOR? Why are believers called the firstfruits? Why are we called “the Church of the Firstborn?”
As always, the truth seems to be something we must have eyes in order to see. If we are looking for exclusiveness we will find it (just as the Jews did). If we are looking for God’s mercy and grace to be more than we ever asked, hoped or imagined we will see it. It’s always been that way. It has been the trajectory of God’s Story. Think of Jonah, the Jews, the older brother etc., They all were astonished that God’s grace was bigger not smaller than they had first perceived. Also we see through the Story that it has indeed been getting ever wider, and man has always had to adjust. Stark evidence that we are not tracking with God’s ever inclusive gospel is our use of Isaiah 55. Every arguer against Ultimate Restoration uses Isaiah 55 to defend the fact that “our ways are not God’s ways…we wouldn’t send most to hell, but He would. But we must understand that God’s thoughts are just so much higher than ours.” But this entire chapter is about the MERCY and free grace of God trumping our expectations, not a defense of eternal torment!
Chan in his Erasing Hell uses the “all without distinction” argument to try and harmonize the Calvinistic tension and make it palatable. However, it just falls flat and extremely short as an explanation and is seen as just a way to attempt to prop up this limited gospel taught and promoted by the Reformed camp. Chan is a Calvinist who crafts his words to make exclusive election sound like good news. But if it doesn’t sound like, feel like, smell like, or taste like good news, it just isn’t. (Otherwise it would indicate God has an entirely different meaning for the word “gospel” than we have been led to believe by it’s normative definition.)
Also I would add to the point Chan makes in defense of God choosing some out of each ethnic group making Him therefore not a “bigot” the following: What would you make of a person who said they loved a few Jews, a few Russians, a few Scandinavians etc., but rejected the majority of them? Would you be impressed with their graciousness and clear them of bigotry since they accepted a few 0ut of each group? Even yet, what if when they were in trouble they made a distinction and passed over most and helped only a few? (and when they had the means and power to help all?) Does this sound “good” to you?
Paul says that the mark of a false teacher is their ability to take something really good and make it sound bad and conversely to take something really bad and make it sound good. Paul actually had to address people who had been brainwashed into thinking eating good food and marital sex was bad! (1 Tim 4:1-5)
Finally the Story of God reveals that you can’t read all the all’s the same because they represent differing time frames as the purpose of God is worked out through a series of ages. I Corinthians 15 refers to an order within the restoration and resurrection of all creation. We are called the “firstfruits” implying more to come.
Yes, there is a context for “all without distinction” but as it refers to us, the elect, we must understand that we have been chosen to love and proclaim the news of reconciliation to the “all without exception”.
Therefore we contend that the special calling of the “all without distinction” does not nullify the fact that “all without exception” will bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!
For an in depth study of Paul’s use of “all” see pdf of chapter 5 of Thomas Talbott’s The Inescapable Love of God.
Dear Admin,
Thank you for all your excellent articles. I will be anxious to read your website and blog often. I found myself wishing for more details on a couple of the articles. On Orgin, if you have time to include references to historical works (for my sake to follow up in more depth), I would be most appreciative. Secondly, on this article about explaining the use of the word “all” being used both ways (without exception/without distinction), it seems there has to be a scriptural basis to read them differently if they really do have a different meaning. I do appreciate your first fruit explanation, but I don’t see why all doesn’t mean all when used in the same context. Being brought up Arminian, I never heard those phrases before my recent study with Chafer, followed up by study with Bullinger and then running across a lengthy video series by a Christian Universalist who said they do have different greek words. Do you remember who started the explanation as it now stands – some historical person maybe?
Great job – and thanks for your dedication and ministry.
Shirley S
Hi Shirley,
Welcome!
I posted a reply earlier but it didn’t go through. I will try again after I test it here…
glwadmin
Hi again Shirley,
Regarding Origen, here are some resources to check out: Philip Schaff, “History of the Christian Church”, Brian Daley, SJ, “The Hope of the Early Church”
For primary sources on Origen see: De Principiis at:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.ii.vi.html
Also John Sachs, “Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology” at: http://www.questia.com
I liked your article, but am looking for a bit more technical refutation of the “All Without Distinction” argument. For example, one refutation of Christian Universalism includes this…
“…the pa in [Rom 3] v. 23 is anaphoric and refers back to the categories stated in v. 22: Jew and Gentile. This use of πᾶς is consistent with other similar passages both in Romans (10:12, 16, 11:32) and in other Pauline passages (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:1-4). So the “all” referenced in Romans 3:23 is all without distinction which means the accompanying participle in v. 24 cannot mean all are justified without exception but must also refer to all believers without distinction.”
I’m not big on these kinds of linguistic distinctions, so am not sure how legitimate the argument is or how it can be properly refuted. Comments would be appreciated.
Hello Blake, I used to see a value in refuting technical arguments like the one above but not so much anymore. The main reason is because the gospel is a simple message that was meant to resonate in our hearts as GOOD news. Romans 1 says that what can be known about God has been revealed through creation/man unless we suppress the truth for a lie. God gave us the capacity to know the truth if we have ears to hear and eyes to see. If one must know Greek and Hebrew in order to know the truth then it is no longer good news. Jesus said that the truth has been hidden from the “experts” and revealed to “babes.” To the “scholars” He said, “because you claim to see you are still blind.”
I found myself in so many arguments over words where the heart of the message was lost as in Matthew 25: the word everyone was arguing about was “aionios” while the focal message of the “least of these” was still crying out to be fulfilled.
You don’t see Jesus engaging in arguments over what the original meaning of a word in Hebrew meant but rather He appeals to their God-given sense of justice and righteousness and their role as fathers etc., using everyday examples from life.
The “all without distinction” conclusion is again, one that the religious always made and God always revised.
It is not GOOD news.
And if it takes a Greek scholar to validate it I believe that makes it suspect.
While I appreciate work done in the area of semantics and linguistics and the original languages they will not change what we know in our God-redeemed hearts to be true. They will only expound upon and give our knowledge more dimension. Otherwise the gospel would be ‘hidden from babes and revealed to scholars.’
I often think about how the world must interpret what they see as sectors of the Body of Christ are endlessly arguing over the Greek and Hebrew meanings of words. Some word studies can be fascinating if they are meant to enlighten. But that which is used to argue pivotal doctrinal positions must cause the unbeliever to sigh, “Well if I must know Greek and Hebrew in order to figure out the truth then I must give up before I begin.” But most considered it simply evidence of its inauthenticity.
When you hear a message that originated in the same place you originated it will resonate. (Andre Rabe) That is why so many wanted to be around Jesus. He was a reflection of our true selves, a mirror of our origin that began in God: Our redeemed innocence. That is why people were so attracted to Him. The truth of who He was was what resonated with them. He did not appeal to individual meanings of words. Any “word” must be a revelation of THE Word of God which is Christ, the “Savior of the World.”
Thanks for the response glwadmin, I wasn’t sure if this site was still active.
I understand your position, I feel much the same regarding the constant poring over the minutia of word meanings. I don’t recall every seeing these kinds of arguments actually advance doctrine, interesting as they might be at times.
But not sure I can agree with you fully. You appear to retreat into a “no sense arguing over words, spiritual folks just understand that God saves all” stance. Arguments, tiring as they can become, are valid, not valid or have some measure of validity in between (insofar as we’re able to determine this). Not all minds are content to shrug off logical arguments as irrelevant, nor, I believe, should they be dismissed. I’m not sure that kind of stance is fruitful when someone asks how a universalist responds to Mat 25:46.
In my book, truth demands proper arguments and counter arguments because truth is the father of, or begets, logic. Arguing can be taken too far, true,but if we’re not able to state or make a reasonable case for our beliefs, I see no reason why anyone else should believe them either.
I do agree with you Blake. There is certainly a place for logic and reason. We were given minds that enjoy using that logic to the glory of God. Logic obviously reflects our Creator’s image and so there is a sense in which we are like Him when we use that God-given gift. There are many things God has hidden for us (not from us) which make the journey a fulfilling challenge.
But when arguments foster a competitive and divisive mood they create something altogether ugly and destructive. When logic gets entangled with “endless meanings of words” it changes its focus. As the Jewish leaders reveal religious folks do have the ability and tendency to lose the point of a passage (and the Story!) They lost the Living Word within the written word.
Perhaps the reason I react to debating is because I have been interacting more with unbelievers lately who do not need “high sounding arguments” but rather they are responding to the simple message of the gospel. It is often the highly religious folks who are sure they are right that seem to want to “get into the Greek.”
So yes to logic and reason and yes to providing the scholarly answers some are seeking. But I am cautious for I’ve wasted far too many hours with folks who are not really open to see a different POV.
Again, I do value scholarship when it is applied properly. I usually recommend Thomas Talbott’s The Inescapable Love of God and Dr. Bonda’s The One Purpose of God. A newish book that I am enjoying is Eric Reitan’s God’s Final Victory. Also pastor Peter Hiett has a free online book that I highly recommend as well: The History of Time and the Genesis of You.
Can you share more about your own book you mentioned?
Had to smile…I only used the phrase “in my book” as an expression for IMO. Sorry, probably came from my Midwestern hick background.
I actually do have a book in progress, though. Been working on it for over 20 years now. It’s a rational defense of universalism from an allegorical perspective, which has little appeal to either traditionalist or Universalist Christians, both of whom are entrenched in the literal understanding of the Bible. I feel universalists spin their wheels theologically as much or more than traditionalists because the salvation of all–just like the salvation of some–is only hinted at in the literal. It requires a specific allegorical structure to put the pieces together properly to find that (and how) God saves all. Christians of all stripes have little interest in the allegorical, though. Metaphor and allegory are pretty much held in contempt in matters of theology today, which makes sense. The Bible’s greatest truths have always been overlooked by organized religion.
I did find what appears to be Thomas Talbot’s defense of the “all without distinction” issue (or something close to it) in an online PDF yesterday. It appears to be a chapter (3) out of one of his books. Thanks for the exchange, glwadmin.
Hey Blake…stepped away for a bit while on vacation. So, there is a book in the works after all! Sounds intriguing…I would be interested to read an excerpt. I have been enriched by Robert Capon’s similar treatment of the Scriptures where he demonstrates the theological poverty of both the literalist and liberal views.
I believe our post-modern culture could be just the right climate for the introduction of a deeper and richer understanding of the Scriptures.
I will check out Talbott’s article and perhaps include it in the post…thanks!
Phillip