To reveal my own position and velocity^[1] it is probably past time that I at least outline my own religious background.  And here, I’ll take the lazy way out.  Matt Slick has done it for me in his “Doctrine Grid”^[2] online.  He acknowledged that “some of these are debatable…I do not claim absolute correctness on all points–only the essentials.”  I’m not going to debate his points beyond pointing out that Mr. Slick offers them as “a layout of biblical orthodoxy” and I offer them only as an outline of my religious background, both its content and tone.

Though I live among them I don’t understand my people, those of my religious background, as it pertains to the hope and promise of universal salvation in the Scriptures.  I think I understand what might motivate someone like Richard Wayne Garganta to eliminate “hell talk” from the Bible.  But I can’t get a handle on what might motivate someone to eliminate the hope and promise of universal salvation from the Bible.  “It’s not there!” is a form of blindness.

A puff piece^[3] about Matt Chandler in the May 2014 issue of Christianity Today caught my attention as I considered these things:

For a long time, Chandler had prayed for his dad to know Christ.  “I remember being confused with the idea of [Dad having] free will, but then me asking God to save him. To me those two things were incompatible.”
He found the answer in classically reformed teachings, especially those of John Piper. Chandler embraces the view that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell.^[4]

I’m not going to say much about free will except to offer my opinion that it represents the contingent choices we make—contingent choices with a really good press agent.  I will look deeper into “the view that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell.”  We certainly knew of that view in my religion.  Our essentially fundamentalist church had separated from the Congregationalists as they embraced “modernism.”^[5]  It was joined later by others separating from the Presbyterians for similar reasons, a group who held views similar to Matt Chandler’s.   My family shared a more “whosoever will may come” view.

It seemed fairer somehow.  Could God be other than fair?  He has given everyone on the planet an equal opportunity to choose to trust Him.  Salvation, therefore, is left ultimately up to an individual’s choice.  That seemed consistent enough with the Old Testament, and except for Paul’s writings and Jesus’ sayings more or less consistent with the New Testament as I understood it at the time.

So, is “God predestines some to heaven and others to hell” a fair inference from God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden^[6]?  I still don’t think so.  It requires me to reject the hope and promise of universal salvation revealed in Scripture (a Christian heresy^[7] according to Matt Slick and a host of others, my people all).  Consider the context (Romans 9:17, 18 NET):

For the scripture says to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may demonstrate my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.”  So then, God has mercy (ἐλεεῖ, a form of ἐλεέω) on whom he chooses (θέλει, a form of θέλω) to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses (θέλει, a form of θέλω) to harden.

I can say with full conviction on the authority of Scripture that the chariots of Pharaoh and his army [y^ehôvâh] has thrown into the sea, and his chosen officers were drowned in the Red Sea.^[8]  I can’t say with the same confidence that Pharaoh or his army will spend eternity in hell.   Y^ehôvâh, as revealed by Paul, thinks differently than Matt Chandler or Matt Slick on this subject (Romans 11:30, 31 NET).

Just as you were formerly disobedient (ἠπειθήσατε, a form of ἀπείθεια), so they too have now been disobedient (ἠπείθησαν, another form of ἀπειθέω) in order that, by the mercy (ἐλέει, a form of ἔλεος) shown to you, they too may now receive mercy (ἐλεηθῶσιν, another form of ἐλεέω).

Paul referred specifically here to his own people, my fellow countrymen, who are Israelites,^[9] and all those loved by God in Rome, called to be saints.^[10]  But I can’t find any compelling reason to discriminate against an ancient Pharaoh and his army: For God has consigned all people to disobedience (ἀπείθειαν, another form of ἀπείθεια) so that he may show mercy (ἐλεήσῃ, another form of ἐλεέω) to…all.^[11]  So while—it does not depend on human desire (θέλοντος, another form of θέλω)or exertion, but on God who shows mercy (ἐλεῶντος, another form of ἐλεέω )^[12]—is a potent antidote to the “whosoever will may come” religious view of my youth, it is clearly coupled with the hope of universal salvation: God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to…all.

Jesus’ saying—No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws (ἑλκύσῃ, a form of ἑλκύω) him, and I will raise him up at the last day^[13]—is a stronger refutation of “whosoever will may come” unless one takes ἑλκύσῃ to mean “Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling.”^[14]  In that case, Jesus’ promise of universal salvation—And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (ἑλκύσω, another form of ἑλκύω) all…to myself^[15]—becomes little more than a promise of equal opportunity:  And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will softly and tenderly call all people to myself.  But I’m not convinced that ἑλκύσῃ and ἑλκύσω will dance to that tune.

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, called to it softly and tenderly, and it rose up out of its scabbard and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear.  The Scripture says, Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, pulled it out (εἵλκυσεν, another form of ἑλκύω) and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear.^[16]  The King James translators chose drew for εἵλκυσεν, making the connection to Jesus’ sayings clear even in English: Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear.^[17]  Here any English speaking person might consider how much say the sword had regarding when, how or for what purpose it was drawn.

“Throw your net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some [fish],” Jesus told his disciples.  So they threw the net, and were not able to pull (ἑλκύσαι, another form of ἑλκύω) it in because of the large number of fish.^[18]  Here the net resisted, because it was too heavy for the disciples to pull up out of the water and into their boat.  But it was no match for Peter dragging it ashore: So Simon Peter went aboard and pulled (εἵλκυσεν, another form of ἑλκύω) the net to shore.^[19]  And again, the King James translators made the comparison to Jesus’ sayings obvious:  they were not able to draw it in.^[20]

Here are a few more examples of forms of ἑλκύω from Luke and James:

It does not behoove the God-predestines-some-to-heaven-and-others-to-hell folk to call out the whosoever-will-may-come folk on this point.  The former are as opposed to universal salvation as the latter.  Still, it seems to me if I understand Jesus’ sayings correctly—No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me [drags] him and, And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will [drag] all…to myself—I get a clearer picture of the human condition and the hope and promise of God in Christ.

The only person I want to condemn to hell is my old man, not my father, but the sin in my flesh.  I have had a remarkably blessed life.  No one raped and murdered my mother, my sister, my daughter or my wives.  Divorce is the most difficult sin I’ve been called upon to forgive.  And I love the women who divorced me.  I certainly wouldn’t want to see them condemned to an eternity in hell because they found living with me unendurable.  But by wishing my old man condemned to hell I have condemned the whole world.

Gentle Heart suggested that final judgment could be like the judgment of wheat and chaff: “So maybe John 5:28 and 29 can be talking about all us dead being raised and our ‘old selves’ get condemned and our ‘new selves’ live eternally with the Lord.”  It’s an intriguing idea that seems to satisfy the long name of God.

The main objection would be the apparent need for postmortem salvation in some (or, many) cases.  But that is really only an objection from the human perspective, the impossibility of believing in Jesus for salvation when one faces Him in judgment.  But from the divine perspective there is no law or rule, no circumstance of life or death that prohibits God from showing mercy: I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.^[21]  Salvation does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.^[22]  And, God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.^[23]  In fact this is why we work hard and struggle, Paul encouraged Timothy, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of believers.^[24]

There is a satisfying symmetry to the idea that universal salvation entails universal condemnation.  But I’ve had a lifetime to identify with the new man.^[25]  If God condemned the sin in my flesh to an eternity in hell, I think I could bid the old man Godspeed and good riddance.  But consider one born from above by the calling of God at, or after, the final judgment.

I know how often I have oscillated between the old and new man when they were in the same geographical and space/time location.  Imagine the trauma of oscillating between the more familiar old man and the relatively strange new man when one is in hell and the other is face to face with God.  Still, the Holy Spirit has seen, and sees, me through my conflict and confusion.  I don’t doubt that He could comfort one in the throes of that terror.

I can’t say this is the way God fulfills his desire to be merciful while He by no means leaves the guilty unpunished.  I can only say, Gentle Heart, in the spirit of Jonathan Edwards’ argument for God as the Superlative Torturer, that if we can imagine this wheat and chaff solution to the dilemma of universal salvation, how many more solutions can the living God conceive and execute to satisfy the desire of his, and your, gentle heart.