Stephen Jones — Soteriology
b1 — Creation’s Jubilee
Apokatastasis / Restoration of All Things
Chapter 5 lays out the doctrine of apokatastasis programmatically:
“The purpose of this book is to reveal the secret of His will. This secret is that God will reconcile ‘The All’ of creation, as Paul told the Colossians. It is to be the Savior of ‘all men,’ as Paul told Timothy. It is to justify ‘all men,’ as Paul told the Romans. It is to make ‘all men’ alive and to subject ‘The All’ to Himself, as Paul told the Corinthians. It is that ‘every knee’ will bow and ‘every tongue’ will confess, as Paul told the Philippians. This is the mystery, the secret, which Jesus revealed to Paul in the three years he spent in the desert.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Chapter 5
Jones employs Acts 3:21 as his programmatic text: “whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.”
Interpretation: Jones presents apokatastasis not as a speculative possibility but as “the secret of His will” — a deliberately concealed but plainly biblical doctrine.
Scope of Atonement (Universal Reconciliation)
Jones cites Colossians 1:16-20 as the clearest proof of universal reconciliation:
“For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things [ta panta, ‘the all’] to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” — Col. 1:19-20, cited in Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Chapter 5
Jones emphasizes: “Paul first defines ‘the all’ as the created universe, both in heaven and on earth, including not only visible things like people, but even the invisible things like authority itself. Then Paul says that it was THE FATHER’S GOOD PLEASURE to reconcile all these things to Himself by the blood of Jesus. Can anything be clearer?”
Jones additionally cites 1 John 2:2, quoting Clement of Alexandria:
“And not only for our sins, that is, for those of the faithful, is the Lord the Propitiator does he say, but also for the whole world. He, indeed, saves all; but some He saves converting them by punishments; others, however, who follow voluntarily He saves with dignity of honour.” — Clement of Alexandria, Commentary on 1 John, cited in Jones, Chapter 5
Jones cites John 12:32 as proof of the universal reach of Christ’s atonement:
“‘And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.’ … Was Jesus ‘lifted up’ on the cross? Of course He was. Then He will indeed draw ALL MEN unto Himself. He died for the salvation of the whole world, not just a few, and His blood has never lost its power.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Chapter 5
Interpretation: Jones defines “draw” (helkuo) as “to drag” — a verb that in Greek usage always implies an imposed will (cf. John 6:44; 21:6; James 2:6). He concludes: “The day will come when God’s will is going to be imposed upon all men.”
Justification for All Men
Jones connects his doctrine of universal justification directly to the Adam-Christ parallel in Romans 5:
“So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.” — Rom. 5:18, cited in Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Chapter 5
Jones’s core argument:
“It is self-evident that all men (NO EXCEPTIONS) were affected by Adam’s sin. All men were born mortal. In the same way, Jesus’ act of righteousness results in the justification of all those who died in Adam. Paul is talking about the same group of people. If Adam’s sin affected all men, and Jesus’ righteous act affected only a tiny fraction of men, then Jesus could hardly be compared to Adam. Surely Adam’s power is not greater than Jesus’ power!” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Chapter 5
Additionally, 1 Timothy 4:10-11:
“For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.”
Jones’s explanation: “Believers are especially singled out, because their salvation comes first. Theirs will be a greater honor, because they will inherit Life in the Kingdom. But yet, God is the Savior of ALL MEN.”
Interpretation: Jones reads “especially” (malista) not exclusively but inclusively — believers are first in sequence, not sole in scope.
Salvation in Three Phases (Three Harvest Squadrons)
Jones develops a three-phase structure of salvation from 1 Corinthians 15:22-28:
“For as in Adam all die, so also in [the] Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order [tagma, ‘squadron’]: Christ the first fruits [or, ‘anointed firstfruits’], after that those who are [the] Christ’s at His coming [parousia], then comes the end…” — 1 Cor. 15:22-24, cited in Jones, Chapter 5
Jones describes three squadrons:
- First squadron — the firstfruits (overcomers): inherit the first resurrection; “anointed firstfruits” of the barley harvest
- Second squadron — the church at large: raised at the second resurrection (Great White Throne); “wheat harvest”
- Third squadron — unbelievers judged during the final age: “grape harvest” — God treads the grapes until all enemies are under His feet (1 Cor. 15:25-26)
Jones on the final result: “‘God may be all in all’ means the fullness of the Holy Spirit will be in all men, NOT some in all, or all in some, but all in all.”
Election / Predestination
Chapter 11 sets out Jones’s view of election. His core thesis:
“The God of the Bible has merely predestinated certain ones to be saved FIRST. The others are predestinated to be saved LATER. Meanwhile, there is much ‘futility’ in creation.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Chapter 11
Jones grounds this in Ephesians 1:4-5:
“Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.”
On the Jacob/Esau example:
“God chose them BEFORE either of them had done either good or evil. Keep in mind that these are Paul’s examples to prove the doctrine; they are not exceptions to the rule. So Esau was NOT rejected on the basis of his evil works, nor was Jacob elected on account of any good works. God is said to have chosen them before birth in order to prove to us that it was NOT ‘of works’ but only ‘of Him that calleth.’ Election therefore means that God is causing, and man is responding to that causal force.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Chapter 11
Interpretation: Jones holds that Esau’s “rejection” is not eternal exclusion but a temporal positional order. God determines who is saved earlier, not whether one is ultimately saved.
Third Way: Beyond Calvin and Arminius
Jones critiques both traditions on the basis of their shared false premise:
“Most people object to the doctrine of predestination because it is linked to the idea that God has predestinated most of humanity to burn in hell forever. They object to the injustice attributed to God. Such people are to be commended for not wanting to believe in such an unjust God. However, the God of the Bible has merely predestinated certain ones to be saved FIRST. The others are predestinated to be saved LATER.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Chapter 11
On Calvin and Augustine:
“If God had indeed predestined most of humanity to burn in an eternal fire, then yes, indeed, God would be unjust. Only a few with strong stomachs have ever believed this, among whom are Augustine and Calvin. … Instead of questioning the Achan Doctrine of eternal torment, most doubted the doctrine of election and predestination! … It is no wonder that most people think that Romans 9 is so ‘difficult’ to understand. It is only difficult if one has a prior assumption in his mind that these non-elect will burn forever in a fiery hell.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Chapter 11
Interpretation: Jones argues that the Calvin/Arminius antithesis is a false dilemma arising from the false premise of eternal punishment. If universal restoration is true, strong predestination and God’s love for all are fully compatible.
Thelema and Boulema: God’s Will and God’s Plan
Jones introduces a distinction between two Greek words for God’s will to harmonize predestination and human responsibility:
“The Greek words to describe each in the New Testament are thelema (‘will’) and boulema (‘plan’). The word thelema denotes the will in the sense of the desire or wish. However, the word boulema refers to one’s resolve. It goes beyond a mere desire.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Chapter 11
Applied to Pharaoh:
“It was God’s will [thelema] that Pharaoh let Israel go. But it was in God’s plan [boulema] that Pharaoh should resist God’s will. Thus, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order to carry out that plan.”
Conclusion: “Man is judged only on the level of his obedience to the thelema of God, for this is the level of his authority. God takes full responsibility for that which He does according to His boulema plan.”
Interpretation: This distinction serves as Jones’s theodicy response to predestination: human responsibility operates at the thelema level; God’s sovereign plan (boulema) encompasses and carries creation toward its goal.
Certainty of God’s Ultimate Purpose
Jones grounds the certainty of God’s final goal in Hebrews 2:8-9:
“For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. … that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.” — Heb. 2:8-9, cited in Jones, Chapter 5
Jones concludes: “‘He left nothing that is NOT subject to Him.’ … The Scripture says Jesus tasted death for EVERYONE.”
Philippians 2:10-11 and Revelation 5:13 are cited as prophetic confirmation that “every knee shall bow” will ultimately be willing worship, not mere coerced submission — since Revelation 5:13 portrays it as “saying, ‘To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.‘”