Friday, February 15, 2013

A Statement of Southern Baptist Soteriological Unity

Together we affirm that all of the gospel of Jesus Christ is found in the Christian Scriptures—that is, the Old and New Testaments—which are uniquely the means chosen by God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to communicate His plan for salvation to mankind.

Together we acknowledge the universal sinfulness of mankind and the universal need for conversion.

Together we acknowledge that, as a result of our universal sinfulness, every person with a capacity for transgression against God is guilty of transgression against God.

Together we affirm that all who are saved will spend eternity in Heaven.

Together we acknowledge with sadness that all who are not saved will spend eternity in Hell.

Together we affirm that any who is saved will be saved by grace through faith and not of works.

Together we affirm that none will spend eternity in Hell who is not guilty of his own volitional transgression against God.

Together we affirm that all of those who spend eternity in Heaven will be able to describe themselves accurately as the elect.

Together we deny that any of those who spend eternity in Hell will be able to describe themselves accurately as the elect.

Together we affirm that all who spend eternity in Hell will do so at the displeasure of God and contrary to the initial design and desire of God.

Together we affirm that God, from eternity past, knew exactly who would spend eternity in Heaven and exactly who would spend eternity in Hell.

Together we affirm that none can be saved by any means other than Jesus Christ.

Together we affirm that Jesus Christ, in the sacrifice of Himself on the cross as our substitute, made atonement for our sins.

Together we affirm that all who through faith receive Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross will be saved.

Together we affirm that all who do not receive Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross are condemned already.

Together we affirm that salvation comes in conjunction with personal conversion, an experience closely correlated with and attended by repentance, faith, confession of Jesus as Lord, regeneration, justification, reception of the Holy Spirit, and adoption into the family of God.

Together we affirm that conversion does not come upon anyone without that person’s knowledge nor contrary to that person’s will at the moment of conversion.

Together we affirm that at conversion we were reconciled to God the Father because of His work in God the Son on the cross.

Together we affirm that at conversion we received justification of our sins as the result of God the Son’s sacrifice on the cross.

Together we affirm that at conversion we were born again to eternal life —resurrected with Christ to walk in newness of life, as it were—by the work of God the Holy Spirit.

Together we affirm that the symbol of conversion—that is, of the mortification of the old, condemned, sinful self and the birth of the new, justified self being sanctified—is the immersion of new believers in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Together we affirm that God commences at each respective moment of conversion the work of sanctifying the person saved.

Together we affirm that we cannot, apart from sanctification, make unto God offerings of worship in righteousness that glorify Him.

Together we affirm that the Law is just and that God uses it to restrain evil in the world, to show us our sinfulness, and to sanctify believers by showing them His standards of righteousness.

Together we affirm the churches’ duty of preaching and working for the sanctification of believers.

Together we deny that anything not both initially producing some evidence of sanctification and finally resulting in entire sanctification is or ever was true gospel conversion.

Together we affirm that God has called regenerate believers, and only such, to gather as New Testament churches.

Together we affirm that God has used as His means of saving us the proclamation of the gospel to us by those who were believers before us.

Together we receive as our duty the mission to be the witnesses of Christ throughout the extent of the earth to all peoples, calling upon each one to receive the gospel of Jesus Christ—that whoever is the elect of God has certainly been elected to embrace and do some portion of this task.

Together we affirm that although these statements bear witness to the teachings of the Christian Scriptures about the gospel, they do not exhaust them, and therefore, that many facts about the gospel beyond these few beckon us to consider them.

Together we affirm the importance of the gospel, our earnest desire to understand it more fully, and the value of studying and meditating upon the gospel.

Together we acknowledge that our respective studies and meditations have led us to differing opinions on some questions of the nature and operation of the gospel that lie beyond and behind the items delineated in this statement.

Together we affirm that, where we differ on further items of soteriology, we cannot all be right, and indeed, we may all be wrong to some degree, but that when we gain further light, God’s Word will be vindicated as true in all respects.

Together we affirm that, our differing opinions on other matters notwithstanding, our common affirmation of these truths and the other truths expressed in The Baptist Faith & Message constitute sufficient grounds for us gladly to acknowledge one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, to owe one another our love, to serve one another and to serve with one another in the Southern Baptist Convention, and to acknowledge the leadership of one another in convention work as God may grant it.

Together, desiring to know more fully the truth of God, we encourage one another to study, converse, write, confer, consider, and even debate among one another the further nuances of soteriology, so long as in doing so we are diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

50 comments:

Bart Barber said...

Just to let everyone know: I didn't consult anyone about this. I haven't organized any movement connected with it. I'm not anticipating any cause resulting from it. I'm not providing any means for anyone to sign it or subscribe to it. I'm not promising that I didn't make any sort of colossal mistake—typographical or otherwise—in the composition of it. Truth be told, I started it 30 minutes ago and haven't even proofread it.

But here it is nonetheless.

David Rogers said...

If you were to take out the references to the Baptist Faith & Message, serving with one another in the Southern Baptist Convention, and acknowledging the leadership of one another in convention work, is there anything specifically Southern Baptist about this statement? Could we not just as well call it a statement of Evangelical Soteriological Unity?

I understand the motive for defining some parameters around which our common commitment to cooperate in certain ministry projects may be affirmed. And perhaps I am just being a bit curmudgeonly here and derailing your main point. But when we talk about unity, I think we must be careful to use the term correctly. We share unity in Christ with all those who have a common relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; who have a common testimony of their life being transformed as a result of this relationship; and who agree on the essentials of the gospel. Beyond this, we share a common commitment to cooperation in ministry with those who not only share with us the above but also a common take on various denominational distinctives and joint participation in various programs and projects. And we should not conflate common commitment to cooperation in ministry programs and projects with unity in Christ.

Otherwise, I think your statement is a useful list of affirmations that a big majority of Southern Baptists should be able to agree on. I would be interested to see who out there does not agree with all of them; or who out there thinks that, in order to cooperate together as Southern Baptists in the various ministry programs and projects that define us, these statements are not an adequate list of parameters when it comes to questions of soteriology, Calvinism, free will, etc. It seems to me that, understood in this way, it may indeed be a helpful list.

Bob Cleveland said...

Aside from a couple of minor nit-picky points, I agree with your Statement. And it's particularly Southern Baptist in my mind, as I'm unaware of any other groups evidencing the kind of divisiveness the SBC is.

Dave Miller said...

I will sign that!

Excellent, sir. I'd (almost) be willing to give up cheering for the Yankees for a year to see that adopted in Houston!

I'm willing (once you finish any editing you wish to do) to work to MAKE a cause of this.

Bart Barber said...

David,

Thanks for interacting with what I've written this afternoon.

If you were to remove those things that you've mentioned, the statement wouldn't be specifically SOUTHERN Baptist, but I think it would still be distinctively Baptist. The statements about baptism and the church would exclude at least some evangelicals (depending upon what that word means). Also, I believe that there are statements about perseverance made (albeit indirectly, but unavoidably enough, I thought) that would exclude yet another group of evangelicals. Indeed, even among Baptists, I doubt that Free Will Baptists would be comfortable about signing this (if people were signing it).

Of course, the Baptist elements of it could be removed entirely, as could the parts about perseverance, and I certainly do believe that there is a core soteriological statement that one could draft (or even create by modification of this statement) that all evangelicals could affirm.

As to one of your other thoughts, I do not think that we are bound to employ the word "unity" in only one sense. The title modifies the word "unity" with the word "soteriological." I am not asserting that this document defines "unity" in an unmodified sense, nor even "Christian unity." Would you not consent for others to place adjectives on the noun and use it in varied ways?

Bart Barber said...

To the rest of you, thanks!

Bart Barber said...

Dave Miller,

I don't think it would be appropriate to try to build a movement out of this at this time. Our convention has a task force at work on this question. Let's leave room for them to work.

In the meantime, since everyone else is talking about this subject, I thought I would put something out that represents what I wish everyone were saying.

Bart Barber said...

Bob Cleveland,

For many other groups, the reason why they have so much less division on these questions internally is that they will not permit any diversity of opinion on the question within their ranks. Yes, there's very little debate about Limited Atonement among the Assemblies of God. Yes, there's very little debate about Unconditional Election among the Presbyterians. But is the fact of their comparative lack of debate evidence that Southern Baptists are more contentious (for fighting over it) or less so (for not kicking out people of either perspective)?

Tim Rogers said...

Bart,

Your very first statement is contradictory to the Bf&M which you say our common affirmation of these truths and the other truths expressed in The Baptist Faith & Message

From the BF&M Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. You want us to acknowledge that man is guilty just because he has the capacity to transgress? That means God holds me guilty of Adam's sin not my own. I cannot agree with that.

Chris Roberts said...

On the whole, a great statement and certainly something useful for Southern Baptists. There were a few parts that made me twitch (three parts, if I recall correctly), one of which *might* be sufficient to prevent me from embracing the statement as a whole, but as I say, overall a good document.

The particular quibble is with the point:

"Together we affirm that conversion does not come upon anyone without that person’s knowledge nor contrary to that person’s will at the moment of conversion."

It depends on exactly what you mean by conversion. In the preceding statement you say that salvation comes in conjunction with conversion which is itself attended by a variety of aspects, but I'm wondering what is left of conversion itself? What exactly is conversion if it is not salvation (but is in conjunction with salvation), nor is it repentance, faith, confession, etc, but is attended by these things?

So here is the part that made me twitch: as a Calvinist I believe salvation begins with God's regenerative work in the heart of the believer. He causes us to be born again, gives us faith, and we respond by that faith with repentance. When God does the initial work - regeneration - we are enemies who want nothing of him. We may not be aware of what he is doing, and we certainly are not wanting him to do it.

That leads us back to the question - what is conversion? I don't know whether or not I can agree with this part since I don't know what you have in view. Our salvation starts with us as unwilling participants but ends with us as joyous and grateful children.

Bart Barber said...

Well, Tim, you're just flat wrong. What I've written is 100% compatible with the BF&M.

Bart Barber said...

Chris Roberts,

I'm quite carefully avoiding the kinds of tightly-nuanced definitions that pull us apart. I'm also writing as someone who is keenly aware of the differences between Calvinists and non-Calvinists over precisely how it is that a person's will comes to be aligned with his or her conversion. Feel free to take "at the moment of conversion" to mean "at least some moment before conversion is complete."

By "conversion" I mean simply "the conversion (change) of a person who is not a Christian into a person who is a Christian."

Chris Roberts said...

Bart,

"I'm quite carefully avoiding the kinds of tightly-nuanced definitions that pull us apart."

That's one thing I appreciated in this. I don't think I've seen it done quite this well before. It's impossible to avoid every area of tension (hence my three twitches), but what you've done comes mighty close.

As for how you explain conversion, I can accept that - though if I were to adopt the statement (I know you're not seeking to get people to do that), I would add a footnote that this process is not from start to finish in line with the individual's desire.

Bart Barber said...

Chris,

It might be helpful for you to consider the other part of that statement—the part about conversion not coming without a person's knowledge. And so, in talking about conversion, I'm not talking about some prevenient, hidden, secret, unknown work of God in the heart of man. Rather, I'm touching upon the PHENOMENOLOGY of salvation, which is, in my opinion, something upon which most of us are agreed. We, as we were aware of our conversion, experienced it as something aligned with our will. The question as to how we came to be that way, I'm leaving unstated.

To add a footnote explicitly stating that conversion begins contrary to the will of the convert would, of course, be to make of the statement something that only monergists could affirm. That would defeat my purpose. And so, what I'm attempting to indicate is what I perceive to be our area of agreement.

Bart Barber said...

Tim,

My statement is also 100% compatible with what Adam Harwood has written about the condition of infants.

Dave Miller said...

Maybe the task force will come up with some kind of similar document. I'm sure we can all find quibbles (especially a document that was produced at the rate of more than 1 paragraph per minute!), but I think this is exactly the kind of thing that we need - a statement that demonstrates our commonalities as opposed to focusing on our differences.

Dave Miller said...

...and emphasizing our commonalities without compromising truth or the gospel.

Bart Barber said...

Dave Miller,

I agree.

Bart Barber said...

I was really just trying to see how long of a list I could make of things on which we basically agree.

Robert I Masters said...

Barber:
Not sure all Reformed(Baptist) can agree to this statement.
"Together we affirm that all who spend eternity in Hell will do so at the displeasure of God and contrary to the initial design and desire of God".

Would this exclude those who hold to Concurrency?
It seems to clearly exclude what some call double predestination.

David Rogers said...

Bart,

All of your rejoinder points are well taken.

I suppose, given the topic of my upcoming dissertation, and the importance I give in general, in my understanding, to "gospel-centered Christian unity," the title of your post sort of got my hackles up from the beginning.

Having conceded that, I do think there is something valid and worthwhile in arguing the point that "soteriological unity," as a category, is best applied to born-again Christians (or "gospel-centered," or "evangelical" Christians, or even "authentic Bible Christians") at large rather than to any sub-category of Christians.

Bart Barber said...

Robert,

I think that statement would only exclude those who are supralapsarians and would only admit those who are infralapsarians. I do not say so for the purpose of offending, but I'm comfortable with that.

Robert I Masters said...

Sorry no disrespect intended!
My comment was directed to Bart Barber.

Bart Barber said...

David,

I get your point. As my ongoing conversation with Robert is revealing, I've articulated something here that is a bit more restrictive—thoughts about soteriology that not all evangelicals share.

Chris Roberts said...

Bart,

Understood.

Robert,

That was another of my twitches. We can certainly say that God is displeased when people rebel and thus are under judgment, but I am hesitant to speak of his initial desire or design when he has not revealed to us his hidden will for his creation.

Rick Patrick said...

Bart,

Overall, this is an outstanding statement. With regard to doctrinal matters only, it could stand as an example for all of us concerning the areas about which we agree. Chris appears almost willing to let you get by with a statement that seems to disaffirm regeneration before faith. This is well written, well conceived, and a helpful contribution.

How I wish our concerns were merely doctrinal, without having to sort out practical matters of fairness in promoting our separate denominational visions. Then, this statement might go a long way to resolving some of the conflicts.

As it stands, I still believe we have several soteriologically exclusive organizations (Acts 29, 20 Schemes, Founders, 9 Marks, T4G) that generally embrace a societal missions approach, which stand in conflict with other soteriologically inclusive organizations (churches, associations, conventions, pastor's conferences) that generally embrace a cooperative missions approach.

These two visions do not mix very well. Something needs to be done to help us move forward. In my opinion, all the rest is a very interesting theological discussion, but this is the knot we must untie, along with some reasonable way to make sure our leadership is representative of our churches soteriologically.

Bart Barber said...

Chris,

I think any infralapsarian could affirm this. I tried to make this no more specific an assertion than is 1 Timothy 2:4. In fact, the only reason I included the modifier "initial" was to give comfort to Calvinists more than to those like myself!

Perhaps I failed in that regard.

Bart Barber said...

Rick,

I tried to avoid any specification of an ordo salutis (as would obviously be necessary, given my objective). If I've failed in that regard, please point out my failure in specifics so that I can attempt to address it.

Chris Roberts said...

Bart,

Indeed an infra could, a supra couldn't. But then you have people like me who think both infra and supra delve a little too far into the realm of speculation.

Bart Barber said...

Rick,

As to the political realities of the convention, we are always a coalition of people with different beliefs. From time to time we just seem to pick different ones to make a big deal about. And, indeed, they come with varying weights and should not all be treated equally.

For example, there are state conventions that have not affirmed the BF&M 2000, but where the Traditional Statement has been received warmly. These are, apparently, states more comfortable with Neo-Orthodoxy than with Calvinism. I would not prioritize in that manner, but it is the job of the convention's political apparatus to help us sort out our varied individual priorities into the official priorities of our common work.

May the Lord grant us His wisdom and favor in working through it all!

Bart Barber said...

Chris,

I follow you there. Do you think that an infralapsarian would not object to…

"Together we affirm that all who spend eternity in Hell will do so contrary to the desire of God"?

Do you know of a better way to word this statement that avoids the problems you see?

Chris Roberts said...

Bart,

Infra would have no problem with the statement worded either way. Personally, I prefer the slightly truncated statement without reference to the initial design and desire of God, but it doesn't make me twitch enough that I would want to footnote it. :) I'm okay with it as is, just hesitate to speak of God's initial (ultimate?) plan and desire for his creation.

Bart Barber said...

Chris,

Of course, my reservations about the truncated statement have to do with the fact that, in some way, we all believe that people are in Hell in accordance with, and not contrary to, the will of God. All but supralapsarians believe that God's desire to have people in Hell is a consequent desire—because people have sinned God desires to consign them to Hell. For a supralapsarian, if I understand it all correctly, God's desire to send people to Hell is not a consequence of anything, but is simply God's independent desire.

And so, this idea that God's highest (first?) desire is that people should not have sinned at all, should receive the gospel for salvation, and should not spend eternity in Hell is, I think, a concept that unites a preponderance of Southern Baptists and that, beyond the mere statistics of the matter, says something important (and, I think, biblical) both about God's character and about who is ultimately responsible for a person's condemnation to Hell.

I realize that this may exclude some people who insist that God delights in the condemnation of people to Hell just because. If, on the other hand, it excludes people who simply wish that we weren't delving with feigned certitude into hidden thought processes in the Godhead, then that troubles me, for I count myself among that number.

I aspire simply to communicate that God has stated his desire, in some sense, that all would come to the knowledge of the truth, although in some other sense God desires to condemn to Hell those who persist in rejecting Him (for whatever reason).

Dale Pugh said...

I'll say here what I said in the comments over at SBC Voices:
If this becomes a movement, I hope you'll reduce it to four points so that we can call it the Barber-shop Quartet. I propose the four-part "SATB". You more theological types can surely stipulate the four words that would accurately correspond to the four letters I propose.
Good stuff, Bart. I look forward to seeing this fleshed out.

Chris Roberts said...

Bart,

I don't think anyone would say God desires Hell for people just because. The supra would say Hell serves God's greater design of furthering his glory and is willed for that reason. I would say whether or not the supra is right about God's initial intention regarding Hell, it does nonetheless serve to magnify his glory even as he is displeased with the sinner whose sins merit eternal judgment.

That said, I think you have done well to include God's universal saving desire while also showing his related displeasure with Hell. I'm just hesitant to go any farther than that, particularly when we are willing to acknowledge there is also at least some sense in which God is pleased with Hell (that is, Hell is in some sense in accordance with his will and desire).

Robert I Masters said...

Bart Barber.
Chris Roberts has expressed well what I know some Southern Baptist believe concerning Gods desire for those in Hell.

"I don't think anyone would say God desires Hell for people just because. The supra would say Hell serves God's greater design of furthering his glory and is willed for that reason. I would say whether or not the supra is right about God's initial intention regarding Hell, it does nonetheless serve to magnify his glory even as he is displeased with the sinner whose sins merit eternal judgment."

BTW... I am personally not decided on this matter. But then again Geeks will not writing Southern Baptist Confessions!

Bart Barber said...

Chris & Robert,

My apologies for confusing everyone with the "just because" language. I was hoping that, in context, it was clear what I meant. I didn't mean that, according to that theory, God didn't have any reason (internal to Himself) for doing so. Rather, I simply meant that, according to that way of thinking, God's condemnation of people to Hell is not a consequence of human sinfulness, logically speaking. There is no external reason for Hell in that theory; God condemns "just because" He wishes to do so, for reasons that are His own.

Chris Roberts said...

Bart,

Thanks for the clarification, I think that's a fair summary of supra.

Bart Barber said...

Dale,

I saw what you did there. ;-)

Robert I Masters said...

Thanks Bart.

Great job!

Thanks for your work.

Bart Barber said...

I just thought of another one:

"Together we affirm that God, from eternity past, knew exactly who would spend eternity in Heaven and exactly who would spend eternity in Hell."

David (NAS) Rogers said...

In my opinion your opening sentence needs tweaking.

"Together we affirm that all of the gospel of Jesus Christ is found in the Christian Scriptures—that is, the Old and New Testaments—which are uniquely the means chosen by God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to communicate His plan for salvation to mankind."

I suggest that it should not be said that "the Old and New Testament . . . are uniquely the means chosen by God . . . to communicate His plan for salvation to mankind."

The gospel of Jesus Christ was shared by believers for decades before the first writing of a New Testament Scripture. Sometimes the only gospel message shared was an encounter remembered about Jesus with possibly only bare reference specifically to the OT. How can the OT and NT be "uniquely the means" when oral communication of the gospel message was a means of salvation for quite some time and even now. I believe the meaning of the term "uniquely" communicates an idea that unless the Scriptures are cited then there can be no salvation communicated.

Do you think I have a point?

Blessings,

David (Not Adrian's Son) Rogers (yes, there are several people named "David Rogers")

Bart Barber said...

David,

It is an interesting point to ponder.

I would rebut (kindly) that prior to the composition of the documents of the New Testament, the gospel was communicated by means of the Old Testament. Where the content of early gospel presentations are given in the book of Acts, the Old Testament plays a substantial and foundational role.

And so, it remains true, IMHO, that God has chosen to use the Bible to communicate the gospel to mankind.

And today, when a person communicates the gospel orally (as I have been doing in Senegal), one does it by communicating orally the content of the Bible.

David (NAS) Rogers said...

Rejoinder (kindly)

Acts 16:31 Philippian Jailer

Acts 17:16ff. Proclamation to the Areopagus

It is conceivable that the gospel of Jesus Christ could be presented to pagans on the basis of a general understanding of sacrifice being a necessary means of relationship-propitiation with the divine and the resurrection of Jesus as a declaration of divine acceptance of the sacrifice and power for new life. Pagans could respond in faith to that communicated oral message. Of course, the OT is an important way of teasing out the character of God, but I would contend that its absolute cited necessity as the only “unique means” of communication of the gospel for salvation is not clearly established.

My point is on the use of the word “uniquely.” The oral communication of the saving gospel can also be based upon the communication of salvation history events (Jesus’ teaching, cross, resurrection) that had not yet been codified into enscriptured writing for the decades before Galatians (or 1 Thessalonians) was written.

Blessings,

David

P.S. I do think you’ve done a fine job on the rest of the statement and hope that many will find it useful.

Bart Barber said...

David,

With regard to Acts 17, you have a point. In Acts 16 (which I had considered, because we're storying that in Senegal), the details of the gospel presentation are absent. We are told that Paul went to the jailer's home and preached the gospel, but we're not told what he said.

At the risk of saying, "It all depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is," I'm going to take refuge in verb tenses and in the subject of the sentence. With regard to the subject of the sentence, Acts 17 is not an instance, to speak precisely, of God communicating the gospel to mankind. Rather, it is an instance of a human being communicating the gospel to other human beings. I'll gladly admit that people do that in a wide variety of ways, some good and some not as good. So far as we desire to learn the gospel from God, we must go to the Bible.

With regard to verb tenses, although during the ministry of Jesus we had God Incarnate teaching the gospel directly to His apostles, and although during the brief apostolic age we had the apostles, while they were writing the New Testament, supplementing the Old Testament with their accounts of the teachings of Jesus, really I had neither of these things in mind while composing the statement, and I don't think that either situation requires me to change the wording. Whatever were the means used by God to communicate the gospel to mankind in ages past, the Christian Scriptures are uniquely the means that He has chosen in the present. If you and I want to hear the details of the gospel from God for ourselves, we must go to the Bible.

parsonsmike said...

Bret,

Great Job!!!

I did have a twitch as well at this:

"Together we affirm that all who spend eternity in Hell will do so at the displeasure of God and contrary to the initial design and desire of God."

But it went away at the next line...

"Together we affirm that God, from eternity past, knew exactly who would spend eternity in Heaven and exactly who would spend eternity in Hell."

God is certainly displeased with sin and desires no one to commit it.

Joe Blackmon said...

Together we affirm that all who spend eternity in Hell will do so at the displeasure of God and contrary to the initial design and desire of God.

Hey Bart

In the above, are you basically saying that God didn't predestine anyone to hell? I totally agree with that if that was your goal. When I read it, at first that wasn't immediately clear to me though.

Bart Barber said...

Joe,

The statement doesn't weigh in one way or the other, really, on the question of reprobation. Rather, this statement really strikes at the heart of the lapsarian question. The implications of this statement are this: IF God has predestined anyone to Hell, He did so not because His highest desires included the creation of a Hell and the placement of people therein, but as a reaction to the reality of human sinfulness.

Joe Blackmon said...

Bart,

I totally concur with that. Thanks again.

Randall said...

Bart,

Do your really believe the following statement? "Together we affirm that all who spend eternity in Hell will do so at the displeasure of God and contrary to the initial design and desire of God." I don't believe God changes his mind or his "design." If he did, either his first design must have been defective, perhaps even his second design may be defective, and a third will be required etc. If people perish in hell, it may be contrary to God's published desire, but it will not be contrary to his initial design.