Stephen Jones — Prolegomena
b2 — The Restoration of All Things
Critique of Dualistic Theology as the Foundational Theological Error
Jones identifies dualism (spirit/matter; good/evil as eternal opposites) as the deepest misunderstanding in Western theological history:
“men began to think that evil was inherent in creation and that matter itself was evil. Soon they constructed theologies around that misunderstanding, wherein good and evil, light and darkness, spirit and matter, were opposed to each other eternally.” (The Restoration of All Things, Ch. 6)
“This dualistic theology presumed that good and evil were eternal kingdoms that would always coexist. The final goal of history was to separate men into heaven or hell, and all the evil and darkness would continue forever as one dark blot in God’s creation.” (Ch. 6)
“By the fifth century A.D. the Church had drunk deeply from this non-biblical theology and had begun to adopt it officially in its own teaching and persecute those who denied it. This was one of the greatest tragedies of all time in the history of Christian thought.” (Ch. 6)
Interpretation: Jones frames dualism not as a peripheral error but as the central theological distortion that shaped Western eschatology and hamartology. This is a prolegomenal judgment about the sources of theological deformation — not merely an error in doctrine but an error in the thinking framework itself. [Deepens b1: in b1 Jones described Greek dualism as the root of free-will theology; in b2 he expands it as the root form of all errors about the nature of evil and the end-goal of history.]
Definition of the Theological Task: Restoration as Governing Principle
Jones articulates “restoration” as the structuring principle of his theology and of salvation-history:
“In my view, sin is temporary. Because it had a beginning, it also will have an end.” (Ch. 6)
“The whole idea of ‘restoration’ implies that history is the process by which God is showing us the results of sin before finally restoring all things under His feet as it was at the beginning. Through this process, we will gain more at our maturity than we had in our naive beginnings.” (Ch. 6)
Interpretation: Jones’ theological method is teleological-historical. The starting point (creation as “good”), the interruption (sin), and the end-goal (restoration) together form the hermeneutical grid. This is an explicit prolegomenal principle: whoever denies restoration as the telos reads Scripture from a different starting point.
Methodological Distinction: Universalism versus Restorationism
Jones draws a sharp methodological line between two positions that both defend universal salvation but on theologically distinct grounds:
“This booklet shows the difference between Universalism, which denies all divine judgment, and Restorationism, which teaches that the judgments of the law are corrective and restorative.” (The Restoration of All Things, book description)
Interpretation: Jones qualifies his own position not as “universalism” but as “restorationism” — a theological distinction with hermeneutical consequences: it preserves divine judgment as a restorative instrument, not as punishment without end. This distinction is a methodological-definitional element: it determines how God’s action in time is interpreted.
Hermeneutical Method: Three Convergent Scriptural Witnesses
Jones employs an explicit multi-witness principle: the same revelation appears in three separate biblical books, serving as hermeneutical confirmation:
“Thus, we have three distinct witnesses—Moses, Ezekiel, and John—who tell us that the four living creatures in the covenant with Noah are represented around the throne of God.” (Ch. 8)
Elaborated: the four living creatures (lion, ox, man, eagle) appear in:
- the wilderness encampment arrangement of Israel (Num. 2) — through Moses
- Ezekiel’s throne vision (Ez. 1:10)
- John’s heavenly vision (Rev. 4:7)
“Although the tribes of Israel depict this in their order of encampment, they are essentially acting as types that represent the whole earth. What God did with the single nation of Israel was a type of a much bigger divine plan.” (Ch. 8)
Interpretation: The three-witness principle is a formal hermeneutical method for Jones: three independent canonical testimonies for the same symbolism demonstrate the intentionality and scope of the revelation. Israel functions typologically as a means, not an end — the revelatory content transcends the national context.
Hermeneutical Framework: Five Progressive Covenants
Jones unfolds a progressive-covenantal hermeneutical framework as the key to understanding Scripture:
“The Bible speaks of five specific covenants in progressive order that establish the great plan to bring all things under the feet of Christ.” (Ch. 8)
The five covenants and their hermeneutical function:
- Noahic covenant — universal scope (all of creation)
- Abrahamic covenant — the bearers of the plan (the seed of Abraham)
- Mosaic covenant — the standard of righteousness (the law)
- Davidic covenant — the throne (who will rule)
- New Covenant — the atonement made possible by the cross
“The covenant with Noah is the first in the Bible, and it establishes the scope of God’s plan for the whole earth. It is the covenant of the Restoration of All Things, for it is the covenant with every living creature of all flesh.” (Ch. 8)
Interpretation: Jones’ biblical hermeneutics is structured by a covenantal hierarchy: the Noahic covenant establishes the universal scope; the subsequent covenants fill in the execution. This is a formal hermeneutical principle — biblical promises are interpreted within the context of the covenant to which they belong.
Authority: Convergence of Scripture and Protestant Commentaries
Jones reinforces his interpretation with quotations from Protestant commentaries that — in his judgment — are compelled to acknowledge the same universal scope:
“In The Expositor’s Bible, Vol. 6, p. 854, published by Eerdman’s Publishing Co., Rev. William Milligan, D.D. explains this as follows: ‘What a sublime conception have we here before us! The whole universe, from its remotest star to the things around us, and beneath our feet, is one—one in feeling, in emotion, in expression; one in heart and voice.‘” (Ch. 8, cited by Jones)
“According to the Commentary on the Whole Bible, page 567 (Zondervan, undated), ‘As in ch. 4.11, the four and twenty elders asserted God’s worthiness to receive the glory… so here the four living creatures ratify by their “Amen” the whole creation’s ascription of the glory to Him.‘” (Ch. 8, cited by Jones)
Interpretation: Jones uses authoritative orthodox-Protestant commentaries as external evidence that his interpretation is not deviant but implicitly acknowledged even by his critics. This is an argumentative strategy that deploys authoritative sources as hermeneutical confirmation.