- Published on
00:00
00:00
'Athanasius and the Universal Reversal
How many realize that Athanasius, after whom was named the Athanasian Creed, taught that literally all who die in Adam will be made alive through Christ’s substitutionary death? This is something those who deny that all will ultimately be restored try to deny since the Athanasian Creed is so highly esteemed by Orthodox Christians. I just realized this as I was looking into what he had to say about Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Here are just a couple of excerpts from his treatise “On the Incarnation of the Word.”
“He it is that was crucified before the sun and all creation as witnesses, and before those who put Him to death: and by His death has salvation come to all, and all creation been ransomed. He is the Life of all, and He it is that as a sheep yielded His body to death as a substitute, for the salvation of all, even though the Jews believe it not.” (On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 37).
“For the Word, perceiving that no otherwise could the corruption of men be undone save by death as a necessary condition, while it was impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal, and Son of the Father; to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all... For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death. And thus He, the incorruptible Son of God, being conjoined with all by a like nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption, by the promise of the resurrection.” (On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 9)
I also came across this article corroborating my conclusions: The School of Alexandria and Athanasius
“He it is that was crucified before the sun and all creation as witnesses, and before those who put Him to death: and by His death has salvation come to all, and all creation been ransomed. He is the Life of all, and He it is that as a sheep yielded His body to death as a substitute, for the salvation of all, even though the Jews believe it not.” (On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 37).
“For the Word, perceiving that no otherwise could the corruption of men be undone save by death as a necessary condition, while it was impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal, and Son of the Father; to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all... For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death. And thus He, the incorruptible Son of God, being conjoined with all by a like nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption, by the promise of the resurrection.” (On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 9)
I also came across this article corroborating my conclusions: The School of Alexandria and Athanasius
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
by George Sidney Hurd
--
Christ’s atoning death upon the cross, in which He bore the just penalty for our sins as our substitute, has always been central to the historic Christian faith. [1] However, in recent times this doctrine has come under severe attack from both Liberals and Progressives who often portray Penal Substitutionary Atonement as if it were a barbaric form of “cosmic child abuse” by an angry and vengeful father driven by a relentless bloodlust. In the place of Christ’s substitutionary death, they present atonement theories which would better describe some of the secondary results of Christ’s death on the cross rather than what He actually accomplished at Calvary when He bore our sins on the tree (1Peter 2:24).
This omission of the penal substitutionary nature of Christ’s death, in which He bore our sins, is facilitated in the English language by the conflation of two distinct words (expiation and reconciliation) into the single word “atonement.” The word “atonement” is a 16th century invention, meaning “at-one-ment” and is synonymous with reconciliation. In fact, when William Tyndale produced the first English translation of the New Testament from the Greek in 1526, he often rendered the Greek word for reconciliation (καταλλαγή, katallagē) and its cognates as “atonement” rather than “reconciliation.” [2]
However, the actual work of Christ on the cross as the sin-bearing Servant is expressed in Scripture using the Hebrew word kippur and its cognates. When kippur is used in the context of Levitical sacrifices it refers to the expiation or removal of sin by a substitutionary sacrifice. The equivalent for kippur used in the Greek LXX is ἱλασμός (hilasmos) and its cognates, which translate as, “propitiation, appeasement or satisfaction.” Christ’s substitutionary death reconciled the world unto God, but that reconciliation was not accomplished apart from Christ’s blood first having been shed in order to make expiation or propitiation for our sins (Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1Jn 2:2; 4:10).
Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sins, and without a previous remission of sins there can be no reconciliation, since the wrath of God is against all ungodliness and He will by no means acquit the guilty (Heb. 9:22; Lev. 17:11; Rom 1:18; Ex 34:7). Since life is in the blood, without the shedding of the innocent blood of the Lamb of God as our substitute there could have been no remission of sins, since it is the blood which makes expiation (kaphar) for the soul (Lev 17:11). We were reconciled unto God by nothing less than the blood of His cross (Col 1:20).
It is more difficult to present reconciliation as being possible without a previous expiation for sins in other languages, since only in English do they conflate these two distinct concepts of expiation and reconciliation into the single word “atonement.” All Spanish versions correctly render kippur as expiación and katallagē as reconciliación, as also do the French versions. Likewise, in German kippur is rendered sühne, and katallagē versöhnung, thereby maintaining a clear distinction between expiation for sins and its resulting reconciliation.
As we will see in a subsequent article, nearly all of the atonement theories formulated throughout history contain truth in the larger sense of atonement. However, since none of those accomplishments would have been possible without Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice in which He took away our sins, His expiation of our sins is the very fountainhead from which all other benefits flow. William Lane Craig, in his book, Atonement and the Death of Christ, aptly describes the atonement in the broader sense of the word as a multifaceted gem, the table of which is Christ’s substitutionary death for the sins of the world.
Christ fulfilled the Yom Kippur Sacrifice for Sins
Throughout the New Testament, especially in the book of Hebrews, the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross is seen to have been the fulfillment of that which had been foreshadowed in the Levitical ceremony of Yom Kippur, or the Day of Atonement (Expiation), on the 10th of Tishri, the first month of the Hebrew calendar.
Once a year on Yom Kippur, the high priest would take two male goats from the children of Israel to make expiation for their sins. The first goat was killed, and its blood was taken through the veil into the Most Holy Place and sprinkled on the mercy seat to expiate or make propitiation for all their sins (Lev 16:15-16). Its body was then burned outside the camp (Lev 16:27). The High Priest then placed his hands upon the live goat, confessing over it all the iniquities, transgressions and sins of the people, placing them all upon the head of the goat (Lev 16:21). Then the scapegoat was taken far into the wilderness, bearing upon itself all the iniquities of the people (Lev 16:20-22). In this manner, the children of Israel were cleansed from all their sins before the Lord for another year (Lev 16:30).
As is typified in the scapegoat, Peter said of Christ: “who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree...by whose stripes you were healed” (1 Peter 2:24). Here Peter also cites from Isaiah 53, which speaks of Christ as the substitutionary sin bearing servant, saying that “the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” and “for He shall bear their iniquities” (Isa 53:6;11). Also, Paul alludes to this when he says: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor 5:21).
In the book of Hebrews we see that Christ also fulfilled that which was foreshadowed in the sacrificial goat whose blood was shed and taken within the veil into the Most Holy Place where it was sprinkled upon the mercy seat, making expiation or propitiation for the sins of the people. Christ is seen to not only be the fulfillment of that which was prefigured in the male goat that was sacrificed for the people, but He also represented us as our High Priest before God.
I would recommend one reading through the entire book of Hebrews in one sitting in order to get the full picture, but here I will just quote a few verses which clearly present Christ as bearing our sins and by His own shed blood obtaining the remission of our sins once and for all.
“But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” (Heb 9:11-12)
“And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified... 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.” (Heb 10:11-14,18)
Here we see that Christ presented His own blood in the Most Holy Place in the heavenly tabernacle, of which the earthly tabernacle was only a type and shadow. Also, we see that the daily and annual sacrifices could not in themselves take away sins. Rather they pointed forward to the time when Christ would offer Himself once and for all, perfecting for all time those who are sanctified and justified through faith in His blood-offering for their sins (1Cor 6:11, cf. Rom 3:25).
Also, the author of Hebrews points out that the sacrificial animal’s dead body being taken outside the camp and burned foreshadows Christ having suffered as our substitute outside the gate of Jerusalem:
“For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.” (Hebrews 13:11-12)
We also see Jesus emphasizing this two-fold substitutionary nature of His suffering and death in the Last Supper. He said:
“This is My body which is given for (ὑπέρ, huper) you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for (huper) you.” (Luke 22:19-20).
Here we see that, not only was His blood shed in our stead for the remission of our sins, but also the suffering He underwent in His body was for (huper) us. The preposition huper in this context speaks of substitution, “instead of” (cf. 1Cor 15:29; 2Cor 5:15; 2Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13; Philemon 1:13).
The timing in which Jesus spoke these words is also significant. He repeatedly said that His hour had not yet come until it was the time of the Passover. That is when He cried out saying, “Father, save Me from this hour? But for this purpose I came to this hour” (Jn 12:27). As the substitutionary Passover Lamb of God, He took away the sins of the world by shedding His blood for the remission of our sins (Jn 1:29; Rev 5:9; Matt 26:28). As Paul declares, “Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us” (1 Cor 5:7).
Many today reject the idea that blood had to be shed in order for God to forgive sins. In a later blog I will answer some of the moral and logical objections to Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement. For the moment, I just want to demonstrate that it is indispensable to any biblical understanding of the atonement. The Scriptures are abundantly clear in stating that without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sins before God, and for that reason He, out of His great love for us, sent His Son to be the propitiation/expiation for our sins (Heb 9:22; Matt 26:28; 1Jn 4:10).
The reason why the blood of a substitute was required is seen from the very beginning when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden. God forbade them to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and warned them saying: “in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” However, while they did die spiritually that same day, they didn’t die physically but continued living in their bodies for nearly another thousand years. How could God be just and remain true to His word without them dying that same day as He said they would? This is where we see the first substitutionary blood sacrifice. On the very day that they disobeyed and ate of the tree, the blood of an animal had to be shed in order for God to make animal skins to cover their nakedness (Gen 3:21). This foreshadowed Christ’s own substitutionary sacrifice of Himself in order that we may be clothed with His own righteousness (Gal 3:27; 2Cor 5:21; Php 3:9).
The reason why blood was required to make expiation for our sins is given in Leviticus:
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement (kapar ‘expiation’) for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement (kapar, ‘expiation’) for the soul.” (Lev 17:11)
From the very beginning, the penalty for sin has been death (Gen 2:17; Rom 6:23). God says that “the soul who sins shall die” (Ezek 18:4). Furthermore, in Romans 1 Paul says that, while man may suppress the truth in their own unrighteousness, they intuitively know that those who practice sin are deserving of death (Rom 1:32). Since life is in the blood, and the penalty for sin is death, God’s own justice requires our lifeblood as the penalty for sin.
However, Paul tells us that, in God’s love and forbearance, He left sin unpunished until Christ should come to make propitiation/expiation for our sins through His own shed blood. He said of Christ:
“whom God set forth as a propitiation [3] by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Rom 3:25-26)
The Scriptural revelation that we are justified by faith in Christ’s shed blood in propitiation for our sins, rather than it being by works of righteousness which we have done, has always been an offense to worldly wisdom and the religious mindset. As Paul said:
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God... 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness.” (1 Cor 1:18,23)
Many, like the unbelieving Jews of Paul’s day, ignore God’s gift of righteousness which is imputed to all those who simply believe in Christ’s finished work on the cross, seeking rather to establish their own righteousness under the guise of following Christ’s moral example (Rom 10:2-4; cf. Rom 4:5). Sadly, within the past 150 years many, even among those who believe in the final restoration of all, have abandoned the historic belief in Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement for our justification through the influence of Liberal thinkers like George MacDonald and others of his day who considered the belief in Christ’s finished work on the cross to be foolishness and even a denial of Christ. MacDonald said concerning Christ’s finished work on the cross and the need to place faith in Christ’s atoning blood:
“- some of you say we must trust in the finished work of Christ; or again, our faith must be in the merits of Christ in the atonement he has made in the blood he has shed. All these statements are a simple repudiation of the living Lord, in whom we are told to believe, who, by his presence with and in us, and our obedience to him, lifts us out of darkness into light...” [4]
Many, under the influence of men like MacDonald, would even say that Christ’s death and shed blood was not necessary for our salvation, since, according to them, it isn’t the death of Christ that saves us but His life, as if we could have the latter without the former. In contrast to this, Peter said that we were redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish or spot,” and warned that teachers would come among us even denying our Lord who bought us (1Pet 1:18-19; 2Pet 2:1). The author of Hebrews, after explaining in much detail how Christ’s blood made expiation for our sins, warned of the consequences of trampling underfoot the Son of God, counting the blood of the covenant by which we were sanctified as a common thing (Heb 10:29).
In conclusion, we have seen that there can be no atonement without Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Expiation, shedding His blood for the forgiveness of our sins. All other theories of the atonement should actually be understood as resulting from Christ’s atoning sacrifice, rather than them being the atonement itself. Cristus Victor, Recapitulation, or Moral Example, would have not even been possible if He hadn’t first made propitiation for our sins before God by shedding His own blood on the cross.
In the next two blogs we will be examining the sin-bearing servant of Isaiah 53 which is applied to Christ by Jesus Himself, as well as other New Testament authors. As we shall see, Isaiah 53 clearly uses the language of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
[1] In the following article I demonstrate that the belief in Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement was universally affirmed by the Church Fathers: https://www.triumphofmercy.com/blog/the-early-fathers-and-the-penal-substitutionary-atonement
[2] The Tyndale version of 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 reads: “Neverthelesse all thinges are of god which hath reconciled (καταλλάσσω) vs vnto him sylfe by Iesus Christ and hath geven vnto vs the office to preach the atonement (καταλλαγή).19 For god was in Christ and made agrement bitwene (καταλλάσσω) the worlde and hym sylfe and imputed not their synnes vnto them: and hath committed to vs the preachynge of the atonement (καταλλαγή).”
[3] The word used here is ἱλαστήριον which is used to refer to the mercy seat where the blood was sprinkled to make expiation for the sins of the people. Here is an example where ἱλαστήριον is used as an adjective, meaning “a propitiatory/expiatory offering” (see Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, commenting on Romans 3:25).
[4] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III (p. 147).
- Published on
00:00
00:00
The Fatherhood of God
by George Sidney Hurd
--
In what sense is God the Father of all? When we receive Christ, we are born again as children of God, born of the Spirit of God. As John says:
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)
This new birth is the rebirth of our spirit which was dead in sins: “even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)” (Eph 2:5). Christ explained to Nicodemus that it is the spirit of man that is born again: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). Without this new birth, we cannot see; much less enter, the kingdom of God (Jn 3:3-5). Physically speaking, we are sons of God even before the new birth. But flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 15:50). Nevertheless, Christ came to give us new life, and in due time, all will be made spiritually alive and will put on immortality:
“And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (1Cor 15:45)
“…in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order.” (1Cor 15:22-23)
The majority of the Partialists (those who do not believe in the salvation of all) would say that God doesn’t consider us to be His sons until we have been born again - that men are creatures of God but that He isn’t our Father until we are born again, becoming part of the new creation. This, according to them, absolves God of all responsibility as a Father to mankind. But this is not what we find in the Scriptures. The Prodigal son never ceased to be a son to his father, even in the far country. When he returned, it was like being born again but he never stopped being considered a son by his father. The father in the parable is an expression of Father God’s heart towards all His lost children. Even though they rebel against Him and are in the far country, wasting the Father’s hard-earned inheritance, His love for them never diminishes. What did the father say to the elder son when his lost son returned? “It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost (apólumi) and is found” (Luke 15:32). God considers all to be His sons and not just those who have already been made alive or born again. The Scriptures affirm the fatherhood of God and His loving care for all of His children:
“Men of Athens…. God, who made the world and everything in it…, gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth…. 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.” (Acts 17:22-29)
Here, Paul affirms the fatherly care of God towards all mankind, including the unbelieving men of Athens, saying that all are His offspring. I believe Paul would have been reproved in many traditional church circles today for stating that God was the Father even of unbelievers. This is not the only instance in which Paul states that God is the Father of all:
“one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:6 NIV)
Here, we see God’s universal Fatherhood stated. Some Greek manuscripts end this verse with the personal pronoun “us” and others with “you.” However, they were most likely added by traditional scribes who couldn’t accept that God is actually present in all His creation, including His lost sons, and therefore added the pronouns to give the impression that God is only in believers. While it is true that Christ only comes to dwell in our hearts when we receive Him, there is also a very real sense in which God is in all: “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Whatever the correct reading of the last phrase of the verse is, we can be certain that God is the Father of all, as Paul already stated some ten verses earlier:
“For this reason I bow my knees to the Father…from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.” (Eph 3:14,15)
Here, Paul includes both those who are in heaven and on earth as part of God’s family. Jesus also spoke to the multitudes, affirming that God was their Father:
“Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying…One is your Father, He who is in heaven.” (Matt 23:1,9)
Some would argue that God cannot be the Father of all because Jesus told the Pharisees that the devil was their father:
“You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.” (John 8:44)
“In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.” (1John 3:10)
Nevertheless, it is obvious that it is not referring to their origin, but rather to their character. They originated from God, as do all, and not the devil. One’s conduct cannot change one’s origin. If an individual were to be separated from his father in infancy and imitated his adoptive father, would that make him less a child of his true father? No. However, those who have been born again by nature tend to act like God, whereas others may act like the devil. What these verses emphasize is that we cannot convincingly claim to be sons of God if we act like the devil.
However, in the sense of origin, even Satan and his angels are called sons of God (Gen 6:2,4; Job 1:6; 2:1). Jesus and John were referring to their conduct and not their origins when they referred to some as being children of the devil. We express this idea as: “Like father, like son.” In this sense, even the Gentiles who believe like Abraham, are called “sons of Abraham” (Gal 3:6-7). However, all of us - without exception - are sons of God in virtue of the creation:
“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” (Mal 2:10)
To say that God is our Creator, but denies being our Father, is contrary to God’s faithfulness. We consider it unacceptable when a man procreates a son and doesn’t accept responsibility for him as a father, and yet some would say that God is absolved of all paternal obligations towards His creation. They say that, even though He created us, He doesn’t regard us as being sons until we are born again. Thomas Allin in his book Christ Triumphant comments:
“We are told God is not the Father of all men; He is only their Creator! What a total misapprehension these words imply of all that is involved in creating man in the likeness of God, in the image of God…. For what do we mean by paternity and the obligations it brings? The idea rests essentially on the communication of life to the child by the parent. Now paternity is for us largely blind and instinctive; but Creation is Love acting freely, divinely; knowing all the consequences, assuming all the responsibility involved in the very act of creating a reasonable immortal spirit…. It seems, then, very strange to seek to escape the consequences of the lesser obligation, by admitting one still greater; to seek, in a word, to evade the results of a divine universal fatherhood, by pleading that God is only the Creator of all. Hence a good Creator, freely creating for a doom of endless sin, freely introducing a dualism, is a profound moral contradiction. Can we even imagine a Good Being of His own freewill calling into existence creatures to hate Him forever, or certainly creating those who will, as He knows, hate Him forever, and sin forever!” [i]
Paul says that one who does not provide for his family is worse than an unbeliever (1Tim 5:8). How could we arrive at the point of thinking that God would not accept responsibility for all His children that were created by Him in His own image and likeness? The genealogy of Luke 3 ends in verse 38 saying: “the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. If God has not denied that Adam, the originator of sin to the human race is His son, how is it possible that He would deny the sonship of Adam’s descendants who are victims of the sin nature inherited from him? As Father God has said: “Behold, all souls are Mine…” (Ezek 18:4). Thomas Allin also says:
“The essence of Christianity perishes in the virtual denial of any true Fatherhood of our race on God's part. Follow out this thought, for it is of primary importance. We lose sight of the value of the individual soul when dealing with the countless millions who have peopled this earth and passed away. What is one among so many? we are tempted to say, forgetting that the value of each human being is not in the least thereby altered. Each soul is of infinite value, as if it stood alone, in the eyes of God, its Father. And more than this, we are altogether apt to forget another vital point, to forget whose the loss is, if any one soul perishes... It is God's loss: it is the Father Who loses His child. The straying sheep of the parable is the Great Shepherd's loss: the missing coin is the Owner's loss. In this very fact lies the pledge that He will seek on and on till He find it. For only think of the value He sets on each soul. He has stamped each in His own image…, and you must see how impossible it becomes to credit that unworthy theology which tells you that such a Father can ever permit the work of His own fingers, His own offspring, to perish finally.” [ii]
This article is an excerpt from my book The Triumph of Mercy.
[i] Thomas Allin, Christ Triumphant
[ii] Thomas Allin, Christ Triumphant
--
In what sense is God the Father of all? When we receive Christ, we are born again as children of God, born of the Spirit of God. As John says:
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)
This new birth is the rebirth of our spirit which was dead in sins: “even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)” (Eph 2:5). Christ explained to Nicodemus that it is the spirit of man that is born again: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). Without this new birth, we cannot see; much less enter, the kingdom of God (Jn 3:3-5). Physically speaking, we are sons of God even before the new birth. But flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 15:50). Nevertheless, Christ came to give us new life, and in due time, all will be made spiritually alive and will put on immortality:
“And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (1Cor 15:45)
“…in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order.” (1Cor 15:22-23)
The majority of the Partialists (those who do not believe in the salvation of all) would say that God doesn’t consider us to be His sons until we have been born again - that men are creatures of God but that He isn’t our Father until we are born again, becoming part of the new creation. This, according to them, absolves God of all responsibility as a Father to mankind. But this is not what we find in the Scriptures. The Prodigal son never ceased to be a son to his father, even in the far country. When he returned, it was like being born again but he never stopped being considered a son by his father. The father in the parable is an expression of Father God’s heart towards all His lost children. Even though they rebel against Him and are in the far country, wasting the Father’s hard-earned inheritance, His love for them never diminishes. What did the father say to the elder son when his lost son returned? “It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost (apólumi) and is found” (Luke 15:32). God considers all to be His sons and not just those who have already been made alive or born again. The Scriptures affirm the fatherhood of God and His loving care for all of His children:
“Men of Athens…. God, who made the world and everything in it…, gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth…. 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.” (Acts 17:22-29)
Here, Paul affirms the fatherly care of God towards all mankind, including the unbelieving men of Athens, saying that all are His offspring. I believe Paul would have been reproved in many traditional church circles today for stating that God was the Father even of unbelievers. This is not the only instance in which Paul states that God is the Father of all:
“one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:6 NIV)
Here, we see God’s universal Fatherhood stated. Some Greek manuscripts end this verse with the personal pronoun “us” and others with “you.” However, they were most likely added by traditional scribes who couldn’t accept that God is actually present in all His creation, including His lost sons, and therefore added the pronouns to give the impression that God is only in believers. While it is true that Christ only comes to dwell in our hearts when we receive Him, there is also a very real sense in which God is in all: “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Whatever the correct reading of the last phrase of the verse is, we can be certain that God is the Father of all, as Paul already stated some ten verses earlier:
“For this reason I bow my knees to the Father…from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.” (Eph 3:14,15)
Here, Paul includes both those who are in heaven and on earth as part of God’s family. Jesus also spoke to the multitudes, affirming that God was their Father:
“Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying…One is your Father, He who is in heaven.” (Matt 23:1,9)
Some would argue that God cannot be the Father of all because Jesus told the Pharisees that the devil was their father:
“You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.” (John 8:44)
“In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.” (1John 3:10)
Nevertheless, it is obvious that it is not referring to their origin, but rather to their character. They originated from God, as do all, and not the devil. One’s conduct cannot change one’s origin. If an individual were to be separated from his father in infancy and imitated his adoptive father, would that make him less a child of his true father? No. However, those who have been born again by nature tend to act like God, whereas others may act like the devil. What these verses emphasize is that we cannot convincingly claim to be sons of God if we act like the devil.
However, in the sense of origin, even Satan and his angels are called sons of God (Gen 6:2,4; Job 1:6; 2:1). Jesus and John were referring to their conduct and not their origins when they referred to some as being children of the devil. We express this idea as: “Like father, like son.” In this sense, even the Gentiles who believe like Abraham, are called “sons of Abraham” (Gal 3:6-7). However, all of us - without exception - are sons of God in virtue of the creation:
“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” (Mal 2:10)
To say that God is our Creator, but denies being our Father, is contrary to God’s faithfulness. We consider it unacceptable when a man procreates a son and doesn’t accept responsibility for him as a father, and yet some would say that God is absolved of all paternal obligations towards His creation. They say that, even though He created us, He doesn’t regard us as being sons until we are born again. Thomas Allin in his book Christ Triumphant comments:
“We are told God is not the Father of all men; He is only their Creator! What a total misapprehension these words imply of all that is involved in creating man in the likeness of God, in the image of God…. For what do we mean by paternity and the obligations it brings? The idea rests essentially on the communication of life to the child by the parent. Now paternity is for us largely blind and instinctive; but Creation is Love acting freely, divinely; knowing all the consequences, assuming all the responsibility involved in the very act of creating a reasonable immortal spirit…. It seems, then, very strange to seek to escape the consequences of the lesser obligation, by admitting one still greater; to seek, in a word, to evade the results of a divine universal fatherhood, by pleading that God is only the Creator of all. Hence a good Creator, freely creating for a doom of endless sin, freely introducing a dualism, is a profound moral contradiction. Can we even imagine a Good Being of His own freewill calling into existence creatures to hate Him forever, or certainly creating those who will, as He knows, hate Him forever, and sin forever!” [i]
Paul says that one who does not provide for his family is worse than an unbeliever (1Tim 5:8). How could we arrive at the point of thinking that God would not accept responsibility for all His children that were created by Him in His own image and likeness? The genealogy of Luke 3 ends in verse 38 saying: “the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. If God has not denied that Adam, the originator of sin to the human race is His son, how is it possible that He would deny the sonship of Adam’s descendants who are victims of the sin nature inherited from him? As Father God has said: “Behold, all souls are Mine…” (Ezek 18:4). Thomas Allin also says:
“The essence of Christianity perishes in the virtual denial of any true Fatherhood of our race on God's part. Follow out this thought, for it is of primary importance. We lose sight of the value of the individual soul when dealing with the countless millions who have peopled this earth and passed away. What is one among so many? we are tempted to say, forgetting that the value of each human being is not in the least thereby altered. Each soul is of infinite value, as if it stood alone, in the eyes of God, its Father. And more than this, we are altogether apt to forget another vital point, to forget whose the loss is, if any one soul perishes... It is God's loss: it is the Father Who loses His child. The straying sheep of the parable is the Great Shepherd's loss: the missing coin is the Owner's loss. In this very fact lies the pledge that He will seek on and on till He find it. For only think of the value He sets on each soul. He has stamped each in His own image…, and you must see how impossible it becomes to credit that unworthy theology which tells you that such a Father can ever permit the work of His own fingers, His own offspring, to perish finally.” [ii]
This article is an excerpt from my book The Triumph of Mercy.
[i] Thomas Allin, Christ Triumphant
[ii] Thomas Allin, Christ Triumphant