Open letter in response to ‘Saviour of unbelievers?’

26-05-2025 - Posted by Geert-Jan
Originally posted on April 02, 2022 - by Andre Piet

A few days ago, I wrote a blog in response to a sermon given last Sunday in Rotterdam EH. An online discussion developed with the speaker (Ed van Brummen), whom I not only know well but also greatly appreciate. The fact that I take the effort to publicly discuss his sermon is an expression of that appreciation, as I know from experience that he never says anything lightly and I always value his opinions highly. I invited him to write a substantive response, promising to publish it in full on the GB website. I now do so here, with a few interjected notes of my own (in red). The conclusion is entirely up to the reader.

Dear André,

I would like to respond to your comments concerning my sermon.

I now realize that 30 minutes of speaking time was far too short for such a broad and expansive topic. As a result, I could only mention many aspects vaguely and was unable to go into them more deeply, which really would have been necessary, especially considering the importance of the topic: Saviour, particularly of believers.

You say: it is a contradictio in terminis to claim that God is the Saviour of all mankind, but not of unbelievers.

However, in my opinion, the latter is entirely scriptural, though I do understand that one could approach it from two sides.

In my view, it is exactly the other way around. The first statement (“God is the Saviour of all mankind”) is thoroughly scriptural, as it is a direct quote. The second statement (“not the Saviour of unbelievers”), however, is a conclusion based on a misunderstanding (see below).

As long as the eons run, unbelievers are not saved, unless they come to faith.

At the end of the eons, the unbelievers will be saved—only by then, they are no longer unbelievers. They will bow their knees and confess Jesus as Lord. That is surely only the result of someone who has come to faith!

It is only “through faith” that a person is saved. That is not up for debate. But as argued in the blog: that God is the Saviour of all mankind does not mean that all mankind is saved, but that God saves all mankind.

It was my teaser to attract people’s attention by posting this on FB. Had I known that it would be so completely misunderstood, I would not have done it. That God is the Saviour of unbelievers can only be maintained with a view to the end of God’s ways, when they are no longer unbelievers.

You claim that I said: God will eventually become the Saviour of all mankind, but is not that now!

That seems rather evident to me: during the eons He is the Saviour of believers.

Which, in my view, only confirms that according to you, God indeed is not now the Saviour of all mankind.

Unbelievers are not saved, but are lost. Thus, the unbelieving Jew does not enter the kingdom of the heavens. You also cast suspicion on me by stating: “that denial of universal reconciliation would be no problem to me.” I have no idea where you got that from!

I quote (minute 27:28):

“I know a man who believed in universal reconciliation and started dating a church woman. Now there’s nothing wrong with that in itself (…) The only thing he found terrible was that she didn’t believe in universal reconciliation. But that wasn’t the problem.”

You wrote: It is a denial of the evangel and unbelief in its purest form.

That is a conclusion I myself did not draw. I would love for ALL believers to believe and embrace the good message of the evangel: that God is the Saviour of all mankind.

Paul defines a believer in 1 Tim. 4:9-11 as someone who believes the “faithful saying,” namely, that God is the Saviour of all mankind.

You claim that I question the fact that God loves all mankind unconditionally.

I did not state that either; I referred to questions that were posed to me. I left those questions unanswered.

True, but by leaving the question unanswered, the question mark remains.

And indeed, DURING THE COURSE OF THE EONS, God’s unconditional love is not always apparent to everyone.

Jesus says to the hypocrites: Offspring of vipers, whitewashed sepulchers. At that moment, He does not point them to the unconditional love of God for all mankind!

Does that mean a denial of God’s love? Is not the essence of agapē-love that it is unconditional and applies to every creature? “JAHWEH is good to all, and His compassions are over all His works” (Ps. 145:9). That does not call for a question mark, but a series of bold exclamation marks!!!

I also think of: Jacob have I loved, yet Esau have I hated. That too does not immediately bring to mind the unconditional love of God.

The word for “hated” means, in the Hebrew, to place second. God also loves Esau and will save him, justify him, vivify him, and reconcile him. In my view, there is no better proof of God’s love for Esau.

And it cannot be otherwise, for that is the reason why, at the end of this current eon, God’s indignation will come upon the world and the world will be cleansed and prepared for the coming of the kingdom of the heavens.

The beloved in this time, the time in which we now live, are the believers who are IN CHRIST, in the Beloved.

I know of no passages that speak of unbelievers as “beloved of God.”

In Romans 11:28 we read concerning the present Jewish people that, as to the evangel, they are enemies, yet BELOVED because of the fathers. And the most well-known Bible verse (John 3:16) teaches us: God loves the world… and how!

But, of course: God is love, and they too will eventually be called beloved, thanks to the work of deliverance accomplished by Christ.

Furthermore, you also claim that, despite the fact that EH promotes this, I OPENLY DOUBTED that God is the Saviour of all mankind! This in response to my statement: Does God truly love all mankind?

Again, that was the introduction, in which I clearly stated that these were questions that were being asked of me. In what followed, I repeatedly affirmed: God is the Saviour of all mankind.

Indeed, you have repeatedly said that God is the Saviour of all mankind, yet at the same time contradicted that by stating that God is not the Saviour of unbelievers. Are you not taking away with one hand what you have given with the other?

Again, I readily admit that I said a lot in 30 minutes; but it is very important that you leave it within its proper context.

I said: “These kinds of questions were recently asked of me by a brother.”

And that we as believers are already now called beloved by God “in Christ” is, in my opinion, not quite the same as the love of God for all mankind.

I fully agree!

Because is there even a single text that clearly states that God calls unbelievers “beloved” during the course of the wicked eon?

I already pointed to Romans 11:28, where this is stated explicitly. And even if that verse did not exist, we would still know that the whole world is loved, since God’s love is unconditional (because agapē).

I love my children unconditionally, but they are not always “beloved”!

My children are always beloved, even if they do not always behave lovingly. Being beloved is passive; behaving lovingly is active. These are two entirely different matters.

But that is why my love as a father for my children remains unconditional. And so I realize that God already loved us even before we were born, and also loved us when we, as unbelievers, were still enemies. God is love, and that includes even all who are still enemies now. I readily admit that this did not really come through during the sermon.

Amen!

The texts that speak of the salvation and reconciliation of all mankind are already, since His death and resurrection, a glorious fact. Only, during the eons, this has not yet had an effect on those who do not believe it. I now also realize that I overemphasized the fact that unbelievers are not saved.

I have no problem with such emphases. Unbelievers are not yet saved or reconciled. Period. That too must be proclaimed. But do not tell me that God is not the Saviour of unbelievers, for that is a denial of the fact that He is the Saviour of all mankind.

There are many gradations and many moments of salvation. Unfortunately, I lumped that together too much. There is obviously much more to be said on this. That I had to leave that aside (due to time) I now regret.

No problem. You can’t say everything in half an hour.

And of course, the salvation of unbelieving family members or loved ones is a great comfort. I could have emphasized that with much more nuance. But again, my core message was: the uniqueness of our own salvation as believers. And I literally said:

“By placing too much emphasis on the salvation of all mankind (which will not take place in our time, but at the end of the eons), we may sometimes lose sight of our own unique salvation.

The salvation of all mankind certainly does not take place in this era. But salvation now takes place precisely through the proclamation of God as the Saviour of all mankind. Those who believe this God are saved today!

Paul emphasizes: God conciliates the world to Himself. Be conciliated to God yourself now. Become aware of your salvation as a believer, and live out of it.”

This is not the subject of this conversation, but I read nowhere that God is conciliated with the world. For God was never an enemy. God is conciliating the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19).

But is God now the Saviour of unbelievers? Factually: yes. But in terms of time: not yet.

In my view, that creates unnecessary confusion. God is the Saviour of all mankind because He saves all mankind.

Moreover, anyone who comes to faith is no longer an unbeliever. And ultimately, at the abolition of the second death, when God becomes All in all, there will be no one vivified who is still unbelieving.

That the truth of God as the Saviour of all mankind would not be relevant for me now and should not receive emphasis in preaching today is a much too hasty conclusion drawn by you!

But don’t you warn against too much emphasis on it?

You also put words in my mouth when you claim that I would in fact want to twist the text of 1 Tim. 4 into:

“… the living God WILL be the Saviour of all mankind, but IS that EXCLUSIVELY of believers.”

With that, you say, I miss the point. That I would deny that God is already now the Saviour of all mankind, and that I would also claim that God is EXCLUSIVELY the Saviour of believers. I do not recognize myself in these (sorry) rather blunt conclusions. I ABSOLUTELY do not deny that God IS the Saviour of all mankind. I only claim that this is not yet a fact for all mankind in terms of time. That is a very different approach.

And now again you claim that I would be teaching that this message should not be told to everyone, and that I thereby make the evangel “harmless.”

Once more, I have never claimed any such thing.

In ’17 you say:

“Paul writes about God as the Saviour of all mankind. But he does not address his writing to unbelievers. That’s actually quite logical, because people who do not know God are not helped by this at all. People who do not know God need salvation to come out of the darkness. And to be enlightened by God’s revelation. And to come to know their Saviour, Christ Jesus. No, not a settled fact that God will one day save them. So Paul is writing to those who are already saved and who have already come to know God’s infinite love in Christ. And thereby begin to understand His plan with the entire creation.”

With this, you suggest or argue that the message of God as the Saviour of all mankind is intended only for believers.

But I applied it in a very different context! Namely, that an unbeliever will not immediately be touched by the message that God is the Saviour of all mankind. That doesn’t mean much to an unbeliever.

I totally disagree. For there is no message as powerful and overwhelming as the message that God is your Saviour. Unconditionally. And that He, in His time, will most certainly save everyone. Even when people dismiss it as fiction, they cannot deny that (if it were true) it is truly good news. The only people who get angry about it (the real unbelievers, in fact) are those who think there’s a condition attached. That’s called religion.

And indeed, I place the emphasis on the second part of 1 Tim. 4:10. Because all of Paul’s letters are addressed to believers, not to unbelievers, who are not receptive to them. This does not make Paul’s message “God is the Saviour of all mankind” any less true, but the EMPHASIS lies on the second part: ESPECIALLY of believers. And the emphasis that Paul places in all his letters when it comes to believers is hard to deny.

You turn it into: …especially those who believe that God is the Saviour of all mankind!

From verse 9, Paul writes about “the faithful saying” that is “worthy of all welcome.” And for this he himself toiled and was reproached (or reviled) because he had placed his hope in the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind, especially of believers. In this context, believers are those who do believe the faithful saying. I am not making that up—that is how Paul wrote it.

But that’s not the point at all. The emphasis lies on SALVATION: of ALL mankind … but especially, above all, particularly (with regard to the now—the time we live in) the SALVATION of believers.

The word “especially” actually affirms that the emphasis comes to lie on the second part and does not refer back to the first part. Parallel examples with this same word (malista):

Acts 20:38; 25:26; 26:3; Gal. 6:10; 1 Tim. 5:8 and 5:17; 2 Tim. 4:13; Titus 1:10; 1 Pet. 2:10.

In Acts 26:3 Paul is allowed to defend himself on all points of accusation brought by the Jews, but ESPECIALLY that he may do so before King Agrippa, because King Agrippa is knowledgeable in all customs and controversies among the Jews. It is clear that “especially” does not refer back to the defense in general, but that Paul is particularly pleased that it is King Agrippa!

Gal. 6:10
So, then, as we have occasion, we are working for the good of ALL, yet ESPECIALLY for the family of faith.
Here, too, Paul’s emphasis is not on the first part, though it is certainly not unimportant, but the emphasis is on the second part! Paul also writes extensively about our conduct toward fellow believers.

1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders who have presided ideally be counted worthy of double honor, ESPECIALLY those toiling in word and teaching.
Again, the emphasis is on the second part, without neglecting the first part about the elders.

2 Tim. 4:13
When you come, bring the traveling cloak which I left in Troas with Carpus, and the scrolls, ESPECIALLY the parchments.
An instruction to Timothy to make sure to bring the parchments in particular!

Titus 1:10
For many are insubordinate, vain praters and impostors, ESPECIALLY those of the Circumcision.
We would say: especially watch out for them!

And so also 1 Tim. 4:10
…the living God, Who is the Saviour of ALL mankind, ESPECIALLY of believers.
When you properly consider these texts, the final passage becomes clear as well. And that Paul was reproached or reviled because of this word is easily traceable in the book of Acts:
Acts 9:15, 16; 10:45; 11:1; 11:18; 13:46-48; 20:22, 23; 22:21, 22.

Paul in his address to the Jewish people:
And He (the God of our fathers) said to me, Go, for I shall be commissioning you afar, to the NATIONS.
Now they heard him until this word, and they lifted up their voice, saying, Take such a one from the earth, for it is not befitting for him to live!

Nothing to argue with. Fully agreed.

André, I hope you will prayerfully consider whether you have done me justice on your site. Because the result is that others (who listen to and follow you) now view me with suspicion, as someone with unsound teaching. Personally, I don’t think I deserve this suspicion. Even though I admit that the sermon contained many loose ends.

For me, this is in no way a personal issue. I appreciated you in the past and still do so, unchanged. There is, as far as I am concerned, no estrangement between you and me in our mutual relationship. I do not in any way hold it against you that you brought these matters up in a sermon, because I fully assume they were presented in good conscience. That’s why I take it very seriously and have not only listened willingly, but also examined the Scriptures “whether these things may be so.” The Bereans were commended for that open yet critical attitude (Acts 17:11). I gladly follow in their steps. My response earlier this week, and also now in this blog, is a report of that.

To examine someone critically is not to cast suspicion. Just as I do not consider it suspicion when you examine me. On the contrary! I always call on people to keep checking me and to critically examine things, so that above all it may be about the discovery of truth. Only that which still stands after thorough testing can serve as a foundation to build on.

Delen: