Tag: majority

Lost in a Good Footnote: The Final Number of the Saved

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Have you ever read something in a footnote that was just too good to leave there? If you are like me, you can get “lost in a good footnote.” This post focuses on another great footnote.

Conservative evangelicals share the traditional position of the Church down through the centuries with respect to a literal Hell. Universalism (the belief that all people will be eventually be saved) has had its proponents but has always been a minority position in the Church. The Bible teaches that there is a literal Hell where the unbelieving will endure conscious torment in punishment for their sins. Such torment is never-ending (Matt. 25:46; Mk. 9:43,48; 2 Thess. 1:8-9). While we don’t know exactly what Hell will be like, the pictures painted in Scripture aren’t pretty. And there is little basis for the annihilationist position either (the belief that the lost will have their existence mercifully ended rather than suffer continually). Jesus spoke more of Hell than of Heaven, and evangelicals traditionally have included a warning of Hell along with their appeals to believe in the gospel.

The idea of eternal torment is hard to stomach in our contemporary world, and it seems unjust by human standards. This makes the doctrine of Hell something that believers have always grappled with. Alongside a belief in Hell stands the assumption that the Bible also teaches that the majority of humanity will end up there. Such a belief is widespread in Christian circles, and many former Evangelicals condemn Christianity for it. They rejoice in denouncing as harmful a religion they see as teaching that a spiteful God gleefully consigns most of humanity to Hell.

But does the Bible explicitly teach that most of humanity will ultimately miss out on salvation and an eternity with God in heaven? Many Christians will point to the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ explanation that a wide road goes to destruction with many are on that road; but a narrow road leads to life and few are the ones who find it (Matt. 7:13-14). To this is added the common experience of the Church over the years as being a “remnant” and a marginalized slice of society.

Here is where the footnote I mentioned comes in. In William Boekestein’s new book The Future of Everything: Essential Truths about the End Times (Reformation Heritage Books, 2019), we find the following in his chapter on Hell:

Other Reformed theologians have been even more optimistic: on the basis of God’s electing grace, “we have reason to believe…that the number of the finally lost in comparison with the whole number of the saved will be very inconsiderable. Our blessed Lord, when surrounded by the innumerable company of the redeemed, will be hailed as the…Savior of Men, as the Lamb that bore the sins of the world.”17 “In the lack of people is the downfall of a prince” (Prov. 14:28). Will God have such a problem? Will He not be honored by a multitude?

…The diverse and often unexpected ways God has fulfilled past promises “should render us modest in our interpretation of those predictions which remain to be accomplished; satisfied that what we know not now we shall know hereafter.”18
(p. 93-94, bold emphasis added)

This hints that it is possible that more than just a few will be saved. I was interested in hearing more and found the following footnote quite instructive:

17 [Charles] Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:879–80. B. B. Warfield also affirms that “the number of the saved shall in the end be not small but large, and not merely absolutely but comparatively large; …to speak plainly, it shall embrace the immensely greater part of the human race.” “Are They Few that Be Saved?” in Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968), 349. In this essay Warfield argues that the texts (e.g., Matt. 7:13–14) frequently adduced to sustain the argument that the total number elected are few, in fact merely reflect the situation of pervasive unbelief current in Jesus’s day. Most pointedly, they urge the hearers not to prognosticate about the proportion of the elect but that “salvation is difficult and that it is our duty to address ourselves to obtaining it with diligence and earnest effort.” He adds, “We can never learn” from these texts “how many are saved” (338). On a related text, Matthew 22:14, Calvin recognizes that while the apparent ratio of saved to unsaved persons varies throughout the ages, Jesus’s words, “For many are called, but few are chosen” ought not prompt us to “enter… into the question about the eternal election of God.” Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 2:175.
18 Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:850–51.
(pg. 94, bold emphasis added)

I then found that the essay from B.B. Warfield is available online. It is a relatively quick read, you can find it here: Are They Few That Be Saved?

Warfield gives a treatment of the three passages most often claimed to support the idea that few are saved: Luke 13:23, Matthew 7:13, and Matthew 22:14. His treatment of Luke 13:23 and its immediate context is quite convincing, and serves to provide the background for his treatment of the other passages. His case is bolstered by appeal to others who agree with his position. His main point in the essay is to point out how weak the basis is for the doctrine that only few will be saved. Such a position “crumbles when subjected to scrutiny” (p. 10).

While Warfield does not make a case for why we should believe that the majority of mankind will be saved, he does offer some brief thoughts: “Christ must reign until He shall have put all His enemies under His feet—by which assuredly spiritual, not physical, conquest is intimated” and Christ came “to save the world [and] nothing less than the world shall be saved by Him” (p. 10). Earlier in the essay he does look to the Kingdom parables of the mustard seed and the leaven as pointing toward a world-wide conquest of the Gospel as well.

Now this doesn’t answer all our questions around Hell, but it does underscore that the question about how many shall be saved has not been explicitly addressed in Scripture. We can trust in God, whose wisdom is exceedingly above our own. He will right all wrongs and settle all scores – and we can trust in His goodness and kindness.

You can read my review of Boekestein’s book here.

UPDATE: The Gospel Coalition just published an article today (3/13) by William Boekestein on this very subject: Are Only Few People Saved? This is an expanded treatment of the topic I bumped into while reading his footnote. Go read his whole post!

Charles E. Hill on Developments in New Testament Textual Criticism

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

A common assumption among critics of Christianity is that the New Testament was standardized after a long period of textual flux. Only by the fourth century A.D., it is argued, were the competing texts consolidated into standard recensions that became the Alexandrian text and later the Byzantine text. This two to three hundred year period of textual flux gives skeptics room to assume that along with the text, received doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the role of subsitutionary atonement  were also only lately agreed upon.

While there had been textual evidence that seemed to suggest great textual fluidity in the first two centuries after Christ, the more we study the early NT papyrii (over 60 significant portions of NT manuscripts that date from the apx. A.D. 125 to the 400s) the shorter any period of textual flux becomes. Last year, Dr. Charles E. Hill delivered the Spring academic lecture at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando on the topic of the early development of the New Testament text. And his lecture which is available online, does much to clear up this question (see the lecture description here). In 53 minutes (he begins at the 6 minute mark) he gives an overview of the history of textual criticism and details how the scholastic consensus from textual critics familiar with the evidence has shifted in the last few decades. The takeaway from his lecture is that the New Testament text is much more solid than skeptics would have us believe.

If you are interested in textual debates, the new atheism, or textual criticism, this lecture will be informative. Even for those who may be majority text proponents, the recounting of the current state of textual criticism today will prove instructive. Hill is the John R. Richardson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary Orlando, and has graduate degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary California (M.Div.) and the University of Cambridge (Ph.D.). He is the author of several books, and was co-editor and contributor to The Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2012).

The Rise of Young-Earth Creationism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

40 Questions about Creation and Evolution by Kenneth D. Keathley and Mark F. RookerToday among conservative evangelicals there is a concerted effort to defend the “biblical” position that the earth is young. Growing up in fundamentalist Baptist circles, I like many others, simply assumed this was the Bible’s clear teaching. I also assumed that this was the historic position of the church.

There are plenty of good arguments for young earth creationism (YEC) as it is known today. These arguments have persuaded a majority of evangelicals that this is the Bible’s teaching and the position to stand for.

But has support for a young-earth position always been this widespread? Judging from the last 200 years, the answer appears to be a decided no. Today, that support is weakening and authors Kenneth D. Keathley and Mark F. Rooker have recently given us a book to help evangelical Christians sort through this question and the wider creation-evolution controversy. In their book, 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution,  Keathley and Rooker point out that the young earth position took center stage only in the last 50 years.

Before I provide an excerpt with their comments, I do want to speak briefly about this helpful book. I appreciate the openness each author has in carefully laying out the evidence (good and bad) for the various positions that evangelicals hold. One of the authors favors young earth creationism, and another leans toward the old earth view. But both take pains to speak charitably of the other positions and honestly about the difficulties of his own view. Their irenic candor and careful grappling with the major positions, is what makes this book such a joy to read. A full review of this book will come later, but for now, I wanted to offer this excerpt for your reading and possible discussion.

Here is an excerpt related to the origins of today’s young-earth creationism. I should note that unlike some other works which point out the history behind the YEC position, this book does not malign that view and in pointing out the history it does, is not using the “guilt by association” tactic either.

The Rise of Young-Earth Creationism

As we noted earlier, most Christians, including evangelicals, accepted the view that the universe was millions and perhaps billions of years old. [My comment: he is speaking of Christians in the 18th and 19th Centuries.] This is true up through the first half of the twentieth century. R.A. Torrey (1856-1928), who helped to found both Moody Bible Institute and Biola University and who edited a series of books called The Fundamentals (from which we get the term “fundamentalist”), held to the gap theory. Even William Jennings Bryan, of the Scopes Monkey Trials fame, held to a day-age interpretation of Genesis 1.

Two of the most ardent anti-evolutionists of the twentieth century were W.B. Riley (1861-1947) and Harry Rimmer (1890-1952). Riley, editor of The Christian Fundamentalist and president of the Anti-Evolution League of America, held to the day-age position. Riley insisted that there was not “an intelligent fundamentalist who claims that the earth was made six thousand years ago: and the Bible never taught any such thing.” Rimmer, a self-educated layman and apologist known for his debating skills, held to the gap theory. In a celebrated series of debates, the two men argued for their respective positions with Rimmer generally considered to have been the victor.

Until 1960, the view that the proper interpretation of Genesis requires that the earth be less than 10,000 years old was advocated almost exclusively by George McCready Price, an apologist for Seventh-Day Adventists. Seventh-Day Adventists believe that the writings of their denomination’s founder, Ellen G. White, are divinely inspired and are to be treated as Scripture. White claimed she received a vision in which God carried her back to the original week of creation. There, she said, God showed her that the original week was seven days like any other week. Price worked tirelessly to defend White’s position as the only view that did not compromise biblical authority.

In 1961, John Whitcomb (1924-) and Henry Morris (1918-2006) published The Genesis Flood, which has sold over 300,000 copies and launched the modern creationist movement. Whitcomb and Morris argued that Ussher’s approach to determining the age of the universe was generally sound and that he universe must be less than 10,000 years old. Combining flood geology with the mature creation hypothesis, The Genesis Flood presented a compelling case for young-earth creationism. It would be difficult to exaggerate this book’s impact in shaping evangelical attitudes toward the question of the age of the earth. In many circles, adherence to a young earth is a point of orthodoxy. (p. 187-188)

When I first learned this, I was amazed. It freed me to rethink the matter from a new light. If good Christian leaders like R.A. Torrey, B.B. Warfield and the like could uphold direct creationism yet allow for an old earth, perhaps the matter is not such a do-or-die point. This doesn’t speak to the acceptance of evolution or a rejection of a historical Adam. The book’s authors do draw some clear lines in the sand, but when it comes to the age of the universe, that is a matter on which they agree to charitably disagree. May more of us follow this approach to the controversy. The age of the earth need not be a slippery slope, and good Christians are found on both sides of this debate.

UPDATE: Read my review of this book here.

Check out the book’s detail page at Kregel.com, where you can find an excerpt. Or pick up a copy at any of the following retailers:

• Christianbook.com
• Amazon.com
• Direct from Kregel

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Kregel Academic for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.