Is God's saving love for all people a disputable claim? Tom Hicks and Founders Ministries apparently think so

Founders Ministries' writer, Tom Hicks, posted a critique of a statement Eric Hankins recently made in a chapel sermon at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. The claim Hicks questioned had to do with Hankins speaking of the all-inclusiveness of God's saving love for the entire world. The specific statement Hankins made which Hicks challenges is "All means all and that’s all all means."

Why Hicks would question Hankins concerning this particular statement seems odd. Does Hicks and/or Founders type Calvinists not embrace the all-inclusiveness of God's saving love for all human beings? If so, why would Hicks raise questions concerning Hankins' statement, a statement clearly made in the context of the all-inclusiveness of God's saving love for all people? (see below). If Hicks does not embrace the all-inclusiveness of God's saving love for all human beings, then how does Hicks escape the implication of Hyper-Calvinism which denies God salvifically loves all people? An interesting conundrum Hicks has gotten himself into I'd say.

Granted some might question whether I've read Hicks correctly. Hicks isn't questioning whether God's salvific love extends to all human beings, it might be suggested. Instead Hicks is questioning Hankins' exegesis of Scripture. In fact, Hicks' entire piece is devoted to an exegetical defense of the Greek term pas.

Correct.

The problem is, so far as I can tell Eric Hankins never mentioned pas in his sermon--at least in any way connected to the section Hicks examines--nor offered any specific exegetical remarks about "all." Hence, what is the point of Hicks' defense if Hankins never asserted anything contrariwise? Why would Hicks raise an issue and complain about an exegetical point Hankins never made?

What is more, the context for Hankins' "all means all" claim seems to clearly show Hankins was rigorously affirming God's saving love for all people when he asserted "all means all." That is, God's desire is for all to be saved: all means all.

Consider.

Leading up to the "all means all" claim Hicks disputes at the 17:23 minute mark in the message, Hankins had repeatedly made a series of statements about election based in Genesis 12:1-3, statements including the following:

• "we're chosen to go to all" 
• "all families of the earth will be blessed"
• "all are the objects of God's desire for salvation"
• "God's purpose was to bring a maximum kind of salvation"
• "it's God's desire to save many"
• "it's God's desire to bring the gospel to all"

Then, after Hankins quotes three texts which emphasize the allness of God's saving love expressed in Christ's death to all of lost humanity--1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4, and John 3:16--he offers the disputed statement:  "All means all and that’s all all means."

And as a capstone to his repeated affirmation that God loves all people and desires all to be saved, Hankins says, "God has a great love for every single person."

Thus, Hankins didn't offer a word study of pas but instead uttered a series of biblical conclusions which, in one way or another, affirmed that God's saving love was and is expressed to all people in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Why Hicks would therefore choose this point over which to criticize Hankins again seems odd at best but unfortunate at worst.

Why unfortunate?

Because for Tom Hicks and Founders Ministries, affirming God's saving love for all people has apparently become a disputable claim.

Contrarily however, all does mean all when it comes to the recipients of God's saving love in Jesus Christ. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son (John 3:16). And regardless of the exegetical backflips strict Calvinists routinely make to reduce kosmos to the "world of the elect," we'll continue to stand upon the Word of God as it's written and forfeit theological presupposition over-layered upon the sacred page.

Comments

[mike]

So you believe that God can not save all He loves savingly or will not save all He loves savingly or both?
You also probally believe that God created the world knowing that He was going to condemn billions of those He loved savingly to an eternal punishment? And yet created anyway?
Or in defense will you say that God wanted to save them but He doesn' t force anyone, so despite His best attempts at persuading them, He flat out failed? (but still, He knew that He would so fail on their behalf, and created them anyway.)
But if that defense is used, what does that say about your willingness in relationship to their unwillingness? Does the phrase 'boasting on self' not come into play (not that you desire to boast, but just that you are).

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Mike,

Well what I believe is what Jesus said, 'God so loved the KOSMOS that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him wouldn't perish but have eternal life.' Clear enough?

[Scott Shaver]

I attempted to engage Hicks on this question at the "Founders" site this morning. Site handlers deleted all my comments before any discussion ensued.

Outta sight outta mind I guess

[Scott Shaver]

Here's one that ought to ring a bell for some of our Founder friends ...

Sola Scriptura

[Paul Owen]

Hicks article is very unconvincing. He somehow thinks it is a discovery that "all" has to defined by the context. But who disputes this? The question is what does the universal inclusive language mean in the texts under consideration? In 1 John 2:2 "the whole world" is a wider group than the elect who have Jesus Christ as an advocate with the Father (because he is the propitiation for their sins). This obviously means all other human beings. In 1 Timothy 2:4 "all" is defined as the whole human race in verses 5-6. All does not mean "all kinds," because "mankind" in verse 5 is not limited to a range of categories, and therefore "all" in verse 6 likewise means "all mankind." It is because we know God wants all men to be saved that we are instructed to pray even for wicked kings and political leaders. And John 3:16 uses the word "world" in an all inclusive sense, otherwise why would unbelievers be condemned for failing to believe in him (3:18)? Obviously they are not being condemned for failing to believe in a Savior who neither loved nor died on the cross for their sake!

[Christiane Smith]

the key to understanding God's desire for all men to be saved lies in the Incarnation

Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God, He is both the Creator and the descendant of the first Adam

since all mankind descend from the first Adam, they then become eligible to be saved by the second Adam, Our Lord

Does God reach out to all mankind? yes, He does . . . when Jesus is born in Bethlehem, He comes to us bearing the eternal power of God within Himself to reclaim 'that which was lost'

[Andrew Barker]

What really bothers me Peter, is that people like Tom Hicks will say these things to the 'faithful' but they will never (at least not in my experience) preach them to the unsaved! Why not? Is it that they lack the courage of their convictions?

I've had discussions about this before and been told that "we are told to preach the gospel to all men and we let God do the sorting out". But in effect what they are doing is preaching the gospel of whosoever will may come and then qualifying it afterwards to those who have responded.

Personally, I think this is very underhanded approach but then I tend to see things like this in black and white terms and I have to learn to bite my lip a bit!

[David R. Brumbelow]

I am impressed that Dr. Eric Hankins was invited to speak in Chapel at NOBTS.

I wonder if he has been invited to speak at other seminaries?
David R. Brumbelow

[dave]

yes he is on the schedule at Southern...thursday november 7th, 2013

[David R. Brumbelow]

Dave,
That's two times in one day I'm impressed.
David R. Brumbelow

[Scott Shaver]

Andrew:

I will have to fully agree with your assessment on the Hicks brand of Calvinism.

Wasn't a slogan of mercenary and certain special forces troops something like..."Kill em all and let God sort em out"?

[Andrew Barker]

Scott: I can believe the quote from special forces, although it does rather sound like a line from a movie! :-)

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" is well documented though and was probably down to a navy chaplain! It's certainly a different way of getting the message across!

[Scott Shaver]

Perhaps, Andrew;

At least innoculate them all with the "correct" form of Calvinism and let "God sort em out"?