Does Jesus save through other faiths?

God saves through Jesus Christ alone.  If followers of other religions are saved, then they are saved through Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection.  A Hindu is not saved through Hinduism.  A Muslim is not saved through Islam.  A Jew is not saved through Torah.  All are saved through Jesus Christ.

Now, the question comes up concerning what happens to those who do not follow Jesus in this life?  I believe taht all who seek the truth will find Jesus - either in this life or in the life to come.  One of the conclusions about Jesus’ decent to hell is that he preached to all in hell - possibly past, present, and future - and that some may turn from their own ways to him.  But I do not consider that to be an essential of the faith; I may be wrong in that.  Evangelism of those who do not know Jesus is an imperative of the Faith.  It is not optional.  I believe that, if people are saved by Jesus, it is better to make known to them what they serve as unknown.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Hi Phil,

I think then you are forced to conclude that the faithful, seeking, Hindu who has never heard the gospel is better off not hearing…

People are not saved by One they do not know.  As it is written, “If you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”  John 8:24

carl
`

When Buddha was traveling and living in this world, there was an old Brahman priest who wore white robes who asked the Buddha, ‘How will all men and all Brahman continue in their merit-making so as to escape the results of sin?’ Buddha went on to explain that even the most extreme number of prayers and acts of benevolence would not suffice. The old Brahman priest asked further, ‘What are we all to do to be saved?’Buddha went on to explain there was no way this could be done. He said, “I have given up my high position and entered the priesthood. I considered that even though I am good, I would have only a very small amount of merit at the end of the year. If I was given the same amount of merit for 100,000 epochs and live 10 more lifetimes, I would not be saved from sin’s results even once.”
The Old Brahman priest asked further, ‘So what should we all do?’ The Buddha answered, ‘Keep on making merit and look for another Holy One who will come and help the world and all of you in the future.’ Then the old Brahman priest asked, ‘What will the characteristics of the Holy One be like?’ The Buddha answered him, ‘The Holy One who will keep the world in the future will be like this: in the palm of his hands and in the flat of his feet will the the design of a disk, in his side will be a stab wound; and his forehead will have many marks like scars.’ From the Buddhist Scriptures of Cambodia

Further…

Buddha’s description of the wounds on the Holy One clearly coincides with the wounds Christ suffered, with his hands and feet pierced with nails (John 20:25), his brow suffering a crown of thorns (John 20:2), and a spear thrust into his side (John 20:34). Thus we see that Buddha’s teachings contained the concept of a coming savior, “Sira- Adia-Meetrey.” That name is a combination of titles meaning the Almighty or Head God of the Universe, and the Lord of Mercies. W. G. Singleton, who has spent much time in Cambodia among the Buddhists, believes the coming of this Great God was originally conceived to come in about 500 years, which coincides with Daniel’s prophetic timetable. At first, Buddha’s teachings were orally transmitted, but during the Maurya Dynasty or Empire, a later disciple, Raja Asoka (274-232 B.C.), commissioned an evangelistic mission to Tibet, China and Southeast Asia. Buddha’s teachings were committed to manuscripts and sent by ship from Sri Lanka to Southeast Asia. Unfortunately, the ship sank, and it was some time before the manuscripts were salvaged.

While the Buddhism and Hinduism are not salvific by any means, there appears to be a connection where God was preparing the hearts of the nations to hear his Word in much the same way the God came to seek relationship with the Abram. There a wonderful opportunity for Christians to point people of Buddhist and Hindu believers to Christ using their own scriptures and prophesy about the Messiah in much the same way Paul did in Acts 17. In mission work, you have to find a connection to the traditions and beliefs of the culture to show a better way and the way to Christ. To that end, other religions may be useful. But to be clear, they are not equal to divine revelation in Scripture nor or their practices salvific.

I’m going to take a “Via Media” between Philip and Matt.

Salvation is through Christ alone.  Other religions have no salvic value. 

I am not willing to positivly and absolutly assert that those that lived there entire life never hearing the gospel or in fact lived in such a time and place that it would have been physically impossible for them to ever hear the Gospel (everyone living in North America before Columbus, for example) will have a chance to choose Christ after physical death.  However, I can find no positive assurance that they will have such a chance, and I think it is best for the Church to act on the operating assumption that they probably will not, making evangelism in this lifetime essential.

No doubt for the committed Calvanist, this is a simple question.  I’m sure they have no problem with thinking that pretty much the entirety of the world outside of the Middle East prior to Christ was created for the express purpose of damnation, and that during the very gradual spread of Christianity being born Native American or Australian Aborigini or Sub-Saharan African prior to the arrival of the first Europeans was a mark of reprobation.

#1 Phil - I have always found it interesting that Paul’s words in Romans 2:14-15 are often over looked: Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. I think the Church sometimes misses the fact the OT Law did allow men to know of their sin and address it according to the Law. Even David’s intentional, personal sin of murder and adultery was forgiven by his broken spirit and heart. I prefer not to speculate what happens when those who have never heard the Gospel die, but God has shown Himself merciful in offering a way of forgiveness, even in the worst circumstances. However, that does not absolve us as believers of sharing the good news of Christ.

#4 Fascinating quote!  When (and Scripture seems to indicate it does sometimes happen) people who follow other faiths are saved, they are saved in spite of that faith, not because of it, and by accepting the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ to the extent He has made Himself known to them and the extent they are capable of understanding that revelation, however hindered by cultural or religious indoctrination or lack of Gospel presentation.  Romans 2:9-16 would be the key passage, though never to contradict the passages that are summed up by “there is only one name (and in Hebrew thought a name was the essence of the person) under heaven or on earth by which men must be saved”.

Romans 2:9-16 (New American Standard Bible)

9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,

10but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

11For there is no partiality with God.

12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,

15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

This is not to nullify evangelism.  Jesus commanded it in the Great Commission, and that is plenty enough to compel me to it whenever He opens a door to a heart made ready by the Holy Spirit, besides wanting to share the joy!

“Said I wasn’t gonna tell nobody, but I
couldn’t keep it to myself,
couldn’t keep it to myself,
what the Lord has done for me!”

I’ve always found that argument odd, Father Matt.
If you really are another faith saved through Christ, you aren’t saved because you’re a Hindu, you’re saved by your seeking for Truth (and Incarnate Truth in Christ)—your thirst, in other words, for something truly real and life-giving, and all the rest of it.

The Venerable Bede records the Pagans welcoming Augustine, saying that there had been something “long-lacking in their rites”, now they knew what it was, and were going to accept baptism.

Framing the debate that way, (in Thomist terms, that is), your argument boils down to “Don’t give a thirsty man a cold and fresh lake to drink from, he’s already got the last trickle out of his dirty canteen” A Hindu saved by Christ is thirsty—and has just enough from his own faith to make him go looking for more.

Festivius, you took the words out of my fingers while I was typing!

Hi Festivus,

No one overlooks Romans 2…But lots of people take it out of context. The argument Paul is making Romans 2 Culminates in Romans 3:10-20…yes, Gentiles have access to the law of God written on their hearts. Yes, Gentiles who follow that law will be saved…through their obedience…BUT…no one follows the law…Jews and Gentiles alike are damned apart from faith in Jesus Christ.

Bottom line - we are not to judge because we do not have God’s Holy Wisdom.  We ARE to spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth - should be our #1 priority.  After that, we have to TRUST GOD, in that He will do the right thing, separating the wheat from the chaff.

[5] AndrewA

No doubt for the committed Calvanist, this is a simple question.

For the faithful exegete this is a simple question.  There is a better biblical case for the normalization of homosexuality than there is for this idea.  At the end of this road is universalism and works-righteousness.  You are saying that men without faith can be saved unawares.  Upon what basis?  Where stands it written that men who deny the Christ can be saved?

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.  John 3:18

carl

#10 Matt - then you would have to conclude that all people before Christ’s work were condemned. No?

Carl, I would reject universalism for much the same reason that I reject limited atonement.  But at anyrate, my post was simply a very elaborate way of saying “I don’t know, I have qualms, but I would’t bet anyone’s soul on it.”

#4 Festivus, do you have a source for that quote? I’m interested in reading about that further.

1. What we know: Jesus is God. God, acting through the three Persons of the Trinity has a plan of salvation clearly described in Holy Scripture.

2. What we don’t know: Whether (and how) God offers salvation to persons in faith traditions other than Christianity.

As far as I can tell, anything said about #2 would be speculative theology.

[W]ithout faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.  Heb 11:6

Faith in and of itself is nothing.  Faith has an object.  What is the object of our faith?  Allah?  Buddha?  Ourselves?  The unknown god?  Do we say that a man who worships the pagan gods of Hinduism is in fact worshiping the true God, and has saving faith in the very Christ he explicitly rejects?  Do we say that the God who gives faith to men ...

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9

.. and it must be faith that God gives, for grace could never come from men ... gave such faith to men that it hid the perfect final revelation from their eyes?  This is logical nonsense. 

This idea stems from a false anthropology of man.  It posits a goodness in man that does not exist, and then claims that God would not be “fair” to condemn men who have never heard.  So we create out of whole cloth a way to God simply to sustain our own view of ourselves as autonomous creatures.  But there is nothing biblical about this.

carl

One of the unspoken assumptions behind the question of “What about those of other faiths?  Suppose they live a good life but never hear about Christ?” is that it is somehow unfair that God should find devout heathen wanting.  It isn’t their fault they never heard the gospel!

The truth is that we do not understand the depth and the gravity of sin.  Sin is rebellion against God, our rightful king and our loving Father.  ALL of humanity is trapped in sin, longing perhaps for the power or the comfort of God - yet seething in rebellion against his rightful rule.

The truth is that God does not owe us anything whatsoever, unless it is rejection and condemnation, for that is what we deserve.  That he saves anyone is remarkable.  Indeed, it is astonishing.  Had God plucked only one person out of the dreadful destiny that is ours because of sinfulness, he would have still done far more than anyone deserves.

That being said, his mercy is indeed great.  The book Eternity in Their Hearts tell of many instances of God preparing people to receive the gospel when it came to them, sometimes in very specific ways.  (If I recall correctly, the Karen of Burma had a prophecy of a white man arriving with a special book that will bring peace and joy - and this before they even knew white men existed.  The Karen are largely Christian now.)  The book also notes that many differing religions around the world tell of humanity offending “the most high God,” losing their relationship to him, and settling for lesser gods as a result.

I heard John Stott address this question at an Urbana Missions conference (‘70 or ‘73), and he said that from what he knew, a person who had never heard the gospel but who nevertheless turned to God, confessed his sinfulness, and asked for mercy might well receive mercy, for their faith had shifted from their own efforts to God’s grace.  Stott did not say that he was confident this was indeed what God did for those who never heard the gospel, rather that doing so would be in accord with his character.  Stott also noted that there were tribes in SE Asia and the south seas who greeted missionaries and their message with “We knew that something like this had to be true!” and who received the gospel with joy.  He also pointed out that, although the group was prepared in heart - a missionary did come.

It strikes me that most people who ask “What about those of other faiths” are likely wanting assurance not that God is “fair” so much as that they themselves, if they are reasonably decent people, do not have to trust Christ - nor live according to his teachings.  (God, of course, is not fair - he is merciful through, and only through, Christ.)

#15 - sent you a PM with info

Those who lived before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth were justified by and through their conscious faith in the Son as he was revealed to them by the Father as the Promised Seed. Those who are justified now are justified through conscious faith in the Son, Jesus Christ. Same person, same faith, conscious knowledge of the Same person….

In the original question, the operative word is “through”- and the answer is “no”.  That said, can Christ save those of other religions who have never encountered Christianity?  I think it would be terribly arrogant to say that He could not do anything He wills to do. My understanding is similar, I think, to Phil’s at the top of the thread, although, I think that rather than say, “in spite of” I would say “regardless of.”  In the same way that our Lord occasionally blesses one Christian with insight into His being or His intent, He may also bless non- Christians, if it serves His purpose to do so- or perhaps more accurately- He has the power and ability to do so.  Certainly, the Christ who has the power to save one like me, who has so often sinned against Him although He has revealed His will to me through Scripture and the Church, has the power to save those who sin through ignorance rather than intent.
  The key question, though, individually and as a corporate Church, is not “does Jesus save non-Christians” but “what has Jesus commanded of me (or us).”  And we are given the answer in the Great Commission.  Once we have completed the task set before us, the question “does Jesus save non-Christians” becomes moot.

I certainly believe that God can and does save people who live beyond the reach of the Church. But he does so through bringing people to conscious knowledge of and faith in the person of Christ. He does not save anyone apart from personal, conscious faith in Jesus Christ. There are stories, and I believe them, of missionaries reaching villages where no Christian has ever visited before, preaching the gospel, and discovering that the people there already know it—by direct rather than indirect revelation.

That having been said, God does not save anyone apart from conscious knowledge of and trust in the person of Christ.

It is not presumption to say that…it is simply to parrot what God has already revealed. To say otherwise is presumption…which is why I am very disappointed if, indeed, Stott said what he is reported to have said at Urbana.

I think that’s very well said AnglicanXn.

Matt - You said:

sharing the gospel is the worst possible thing you could do to, for example, a faithful, sincere, and believing Hindu who has never heard the truth about Jesus.

and

forced to conclude that the faithful, seeking, Hindu who has never heard the gospel is better off not hearing.

Essentially - If they might be saved apart from knowledge of Christ but become accountable for their sins once they hear, then aren’t you doing them a disservice if your preaching is inneffective - condemning many to He11 who would otherwise be on their way to Heaven?

A few thoughts:

1) If ever there was a thread predestined to end up in another TULIP conversation…

2a) What do we mean by “hear” ??? Might not there be many who hear without “hearing,” and does that not expand the group in question from pigmy tribes to our own neighbors?

2b) We’re talking about hypothetical people who are essentially “good” but haven’t heard of Christ. Is this not a null set?

3) If the hypothetical group that would go to Heaven without the preaching of the Word is “better off” not hearing… does that not call into question our opinion of the value of salvation while still part of the church militant? If we come to Christ in our 60s, do we not fervently desire that we had done so in our teens?

4) Where do we go with “invincible ignorance?”

The question is still “why preach if your words may move them from a lack of accountability for their sins to accountability? I’m not sure that can come to acceptance of the premise, but I still think I know the answer. I don’t know with certainty what circumstances result in going to he11… I do know one (and only one) way that I am certain leads to Life eternal. How can we not “go afishing” when this is what we are told to do?

#20 Matt - so could they have ignored the Law and the requirements of atonement for acts of unintentional sin, based on the future work of Christ on the cross, and still be justified?

That having been said, God does not save anyone apart from conscious knowledge of and trust in the person of Christ.

Ah…I agree… but that still leaves the question “what form does that ‘conscious knowledge’ take?”  Would we necessarily recognize it?

I’m reasonably confident, for isntance, that those B.C. jews would not phrase their “faith in the Son as he was revealed to them by the Father as the Promised Seed” in quite that way. we may recognize it as true now… but would we have been able to then?

sheesh! And theologians used to waste their time arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  I think you guys have them in spades!  Frances Scott

“#20 Matt - so could they have ignored the Law and the requirements of atonement for acts of unintentional sin, based on the future work of Christ on the cross, and still be justified?”

What does Paul say in Romans 4?

#27 Matt - I do not want to misunderstand you. It appears your view is that Levitical Laws were completely useless and ineffectual based on Abraham as an example of faith and credit to righteousness. I would venture to guess that you see it’s value in that it shows OT sinful men the cost of their actions - rather than actually imputing any justification. Correct?

Hi Festivus.

No law, NT or OT, imputes justification. But this does not mean the law is useless or ineffectual. It simply means that law is useless and ineffectual for the purpose of justification. The levitical law—all law in fact—is good but it does not justify. It points to the need for Christ (as you say) and, once justified, serves as a guide for our sanctification and helps regulate human behavior. But no law can justify.

Sorry DaveW (#24), I should have been clearer. I didn’t mean “justification” in the theological sense.

What I meant was that to believe that it’s a sin for “man to go against his nature” combined with the simply truth that man is, by nature, sinful… adds up to “for a man NOT to sin (which is his nature) is the real sin”

Ignoring the explicit circular error inherent in that notion, it’s still a license to sin.

Sorry guys… I have no idea how I posted #30 on this thread (it belongs on the “VGR says only non-gay homosexual sex is bad” thread).

Please delete if convenient.

If the standard is to be only “personal, conscious faith in Jesus Christ,” then many are omitted:  those who die before birth, very small children, the profoundly mentally disabled.

I believe that God can, and may, save those who are not consciously Christian—but not “through other faiths.”  No one is saved by circling the Kaaba, by offering to Hindu idols, by meditation following the Buddha, by following Mormon ordinances,—or, as our faith points out, by following the Law of Moses precisely.  No one is saved other than by the grace of God.  But it is clear that Christians, who know God in Jesus Christ, have the true path to salvation and sanctification which others lack, and the true assurance of love and joy which others lack.  We are commended to share these with the whole world, without exception.  When we do so we exponentially increase the likelihood that the hearers will be saved.

In #32, I meant “commanded,” which is stronger than “commended.”

Questions like this one rapidly open up the theological fault lines among Christians.  It seems to me that other religions do not have any salvific value (this is different from moral value).  It is important to note that in any society where the Christian Gospel is unknown there are those who are unsatisfied by the religious options available to them, and who seek after the God of heaven.  They are like some who raised the altar to the unknown god in Athens.  I expect that at the great judgment they will immediately recognize Christ as the fulfillment of their longing.  They will be saved through Christ by being obedient to the calling of the Holy Spirit in prevenient grace.  I am aware that is may be a too Arminian style response for some, but remains faithful to understand Christ as the only way to reconciliation with God and continues to encourage (and recognize the value of) evangelism.  Most who have not heard of Christ are not obedient to the calling of the Holy Spirit in prevenient grace.  Both those who are obedient and those who are not obedient are in a position to hear the Gospel of Christ as good news.  The obedient because it comes as a gift to name the object of their desire.  For them it is movement from the shadows to the light.  For the disobedient evangelism brings the light of conviction and grace.
If we abandon the confession that Christ is the ONLY route to salvation, we fail to be Christians.  It is at this point (rather than differing methods of biblical interpretation or ethical/moral decisions) that may in “Christian” churches have lost any claim to be Christians.

“If the standard is to be only “personal, conscious faith in Jesus Christ,” then many are omitted:  those who die before birth, very small children, the profoundly mentally disabled…”

How on earth do you know that?

I didn’t finish reading this thread because I felt a need to comment from about half way through.

Following the logic of Matt’s and carl’s arguments makes one conclude that it could not be Abraham nor Moses on either side of Jesus at the Transfiguration as they didn’t explicitly know the Christ in their lifetimes and therefore were damned.  Yet they were there.  Therefore I have to conclude that the Calvinist arguments put forward are unsustainable, at least with respect to this subject.

Also I found that the quote from Bhuddist writtings most interesting.  He seems to have been told of what was to come.

Bill B,

You should have read the thread.

How can a tiny child, or a profoundly mentally retarded person, consciously know and accept faith in Christ?  Consciously, and with intention and understanding?  That’s my question.

Hi Katherine,

There is no darkness that is too dark for him (ps. 139). Those created in God’s image have the capacity to relate to him quite apart from their mental condition or age.

Matt+, #39, I think that is the essence of what I’m saying, and perhaps others on this thread.

Hi Katherine,

No…the argument is between those who believe that God justifies apart from conscious knowledge of and faith in Jesus Christ and those who believe he does not.

I think what Matt is trying to say that for those who have the capacity for conscious knowledge are required to have faith in Jesus Christ in order to be justified. But those with severely disabled friends or relatives or with children who die young, can take comfort from Scriptures such as Ps 139.

Matt+, I think that’s what you think, but as I have read several comments on this thread, and examined my own thinking, I don’t think several who are in apparent disagreement with you look at it that way.  Or, perhaps we are arguing about what “conscious knowledge of and faith in” mean.  When we go into the higher reaches of philosophy, we go where I cannot.  What I say, on my level, is that there are those who through physical obstructions, mental disorder, or the obstruction provided by living in a non-Christian culture, are in great darkness, and yet God reaches them, as you say.  Thinking that this might be possible through God’s great mercy in no way releases us from trying to reach every single person who is able to have a conscious knowledge of and faith in Christ.  And I absolutely agree that such persons are not saved “through” some other religion.

The Catholic Church’s view is that:

“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.“63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1260

The question comes down to “Does Jesus save?” or “Does Saying ‘Jesus saves’ save?”  If Jesus saves, then we can leave that question for God to answer.  I will say that Jesus saves and only Jesus saves.  It is up to God whom He will save and not up to me or Matt or anyone else.  I can entrust the face of those who do not know Jesus in this life to His mercy.

In the mean time, I am commanded (as are we all) to go and make disciples.  So, what are you doing to make disciples of Jesus Christ?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Hebrew 11 seems to indicate that a great number of OT figures shared the same faith that is ours and that God approved such faith. That is like us they were confident in their hope in God or perhaps like us their faith guaranteed what they hoped for, but nevertheless they did not receive what was promised (the fulfillment of the God’s promise in the celebratory communion of saints made possible by Christ’s sacrifice (Heb. 12. 21-24)). Our Lord too spoke of y because they havethe Patriarchs sharing in the banquet of the Kingdom. Of course, such figures lived before the birth of Christ and were part Israel and both are surely significant. I do wonder if there is a way of at least thinking about those who may be described as having faith but have not received what was promised - perhaps because they have never heard of Christ or received the Kingdom.

Those who present or understand reformed theology to be highly exclusive and likely to bar the way to heaven’s gate need to consider a question.

Is it more hopeful to think that humanity can get it together sufficiently and make the right choice to seek God, or should we rest on the incredible mercy and power of God to save who He wills to save?

I agree with Matt that no darkness is too dark for Christ to reveal Himself. The question remains, however, if Christ ever does this to one who does not by name know of Jesus.

There is certainly no hope without Christ, but I wonder just how or why the merits of Christ actually get applied to a person’s life to save him from judgement.

Since I don’t believe that anyone seeks truth and there are no sincere believers (even in Jesus), human effort is of no comfort to me. I don’t think there is any such thing as a sincere Hindu who is seeking truth sufficient to recieve salvation. But again, neither are there any “Christians” who rise to such salvific heights of sincerely, regardless of the sureness of their faith’s object.

It is all God’s mercy. I believe that the real sinner’s prayer is probably “God be merciful to me a sinner”. I’m not so sure we can confidently say that God is not allowed to save a person unless he understands the mechanics of just how God may deign to be merciful. I’m not at all sure that the OT saints understood that the coming Messiah would be the means of their salvation.
They clearly knew, however, that they had fallen short of God’s standard and that if there was any hope, somehow God would have to be merciful.

Isn’t it truly Good News to be able to tell people of other faiths just how it is that God has promised to be merciful in Jesus? Why would anyone NOT want to tell other’s how they can be sure of God’s promises?

Running through this discussion is an assumption of contingency.  There is an unspoken belief that the eternal destiny of any given man is unknowable prior to some action of man’s will.  God of course (the assumption continues) will know the choice of man by means of His omniscience, but this knowledge will be passively acquired.  God must therefore react to the contingency of this knowledge because (it is assumed) He chooses not to interfere with the will of man.  Each man’s destiny is thus indeterminate at the time of his conception.  He may or may not be saved depending upon the choices he makes. 

This assumption of contingency leads to problems at the boundaries.  People start to ponder the difficult case - exactly those cases mentioned on this thread.  What about unborn children?  What about infants?  What about the man on the desert island who has never heard?  Each has been born with his salvation contingent upon his own decisions.  What then if life interferes with his ability to make a decision?  How can he be held to account if he is never given the opportunity to exercise the contingency.  There soon follows the appeal to “fairness,” and we begin to see the development of extra-Scriptural mechanisms to escape the dilemma that the assumption of contingency has created.

But the assumption of contingency is wrong.  The beginning of salvation is Election.  God as sovereign chooses a people for Himself, and then pledges to redeem this people for His glory.  This is not a generic choice or a general choice.  It is a specific choice of specific individuals with specific names who live at specific times and specific places.  It is God who chooses them.  It is God who seeks them.  It is God who calls them.  It is God who justifies them.  It is God who sanctifies them.  It is God who watches carefully to insure that not one of those He has chosen is lost.  This is the great guarantee of salvation.  There is not one man whom God has chosen for salvation that will be lost, for God has guaranteed the outcome.  God’s sovereign election removes the possibility of contingency from the equation.  The fear of contingency is that a man might be lost who otherwise might have been saved.  There is no such man. 

carl

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

But Matt, some people don’t interpret it that way!
(I jest, of course)

A fascinating thread. I’m going to make a number of related comments to deal with different issues raised.

First, some have argued from Rom 2:14-15 that God judges all men according to their conscience.

I want to argue that that is not, in fact, what Paul is demonstrating. Rather, he wishes the Jewish Christians in Rome to see that having the Law cannot be prized above keeping the Law:

Romans 2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. </bockquote>
Now, this is spoken to proud Jewish Christians. What better example to give them than a <u>Gentile</u> Christian? After all, the pride shown by both sides is what Paul addresses throughout chapters 1-11.
So, speaking to the Jewish Christians primarily, he says,
<blockquote> Romans 2:14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, ¹⁵ since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

The key phrase, I submit, is “show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts”.
This is a direct allusion to

Jeremiah 31:33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

What we should note is that this speaks of what we might call “New Covenant conversion” - an internalisation of “lawkeeping”. True “circumcision of the heart” etc.

This is not about unconverted Gentiles being judged according to works and found to have merit, rather its about God’s act of conversion in the hearts of men.

Which makes most sense in the context of Romans 2 - Paul is telling the Jewish Christians that keeping the law matters - so he presents them with Gentile Christians who keep the law even though they do not have the written law.

#49 Does God will the salvation of all people?

#20

Those who lived before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth were justified by and through their conscious faith in the Son as he was revealed to them by the Father as the Promised Seed

I don’t think this is quite right, given that Abel is commended for his faith in Hebrews 11 and at that point God had not revealed his promise concerning Abraham’s “seed”.

The Seed was first promised in Gen 3

OK, as you see it, what is the propositional content of Abel’s “self conscious” faith. (For it seems to me depending on how you outline this - it may be that others who do not know Christ may be described as having such “faith”)

Hi Driver8. He trusted in the promise of God as it had been revealed by God.

As it had been revealed to him, or as it had been revealed up to that point in time?

If that’s the case the kind of faith that is Abel’s - that Scripture teaches may give one God’s approval as righteous - may be something like “trusting God promises as one reasonably understands they have been revealed”. (In other words granting your interpretation of Genesis 3 - it’s nevertheless not a failure of faith for Abel not to believe that the Seed would be born of a Virgin or die on a cross since God in his Providence had not yet revealed those things).

I do not think it possible for anyone to be justified or even to seek God apart from God’s regenerative grace.

It is not as if thousands of pagans are beating down the doors of heaven…seeking the truth and missing it. No one seeks God (Romans 3:10-18). Our natural state is one of hardened idolatrous rebellion. Those of other faiths are just as spiritually dead as the Pharisees in Jerusalem, pagan libertines Corinth, and Philosophers in Athens.

No one truly seeks God unless God has already found him…seeking is evidence of regeneration because we do not naturally seek God. And having found a sinner and granted him new birth, God necessarily brings him to faith in his Son.

The good model for this is Cornelius. God was not content to leave him in ignorance. He called Peter to preach the gospel.

So, in some sense your question PP has got to be answered with a general “yes”—both personally and in general. 

God revealed the Promise in General to Eve in Gen 3. But if we are to say that Abel was justified, then I think we must also say that God gave him a heart of flesh so that he could come to know and trust in the Promise as He had been revealed up to that point in redemption history.

Yes - without God’s grace no one can be saved. Abel is a thought provoking witness from Scripture - because he knows nothing of the election of Israel, or the covenant with Noah, or the giving of the Law, of the promises to the Davidic line, or the Virgin birth or the cross of Christ - but Scripture describes his “faith” as exemplary and him as “righteous”.

Of course, the only parallel I’m drawing is with those who like Abel may know nothing of such matters but may still be described as having faith (that is trusting the promises of which they do know) and even being righteous - though they have not in fact yet received what God promised.

But it is a false parallel. Abel knew and was given faith in what was revealed. The people you refer to do not.

So, if I understand the opposing position correctly:

God, by grace, raises a spiritually dead pagan to life, gives him a new heart and the capacity to do the good and avoid the bad and to follow the light of truth…and yet, with all of this divine exertion, God leaves him in the throes of paganism, worshiping the Buddha or following Mohamed and simply decides not to bring this person to personal faith in Jesus Christ?

It would be far more reasonable and far more in keeping with the revealed desire of the Father to glorify the Son to bring such a regenerate pagan, consciously, to the light of Christ than to leave him wallowing in paganism—in doctrines that originate in hell and are given to deceive.

Moreover, the biblical model is quite clear…When God wants god-fearing Cornelius to be justified, he sends Peter to preach the gospel. When God wants to save the Ethiopian Eunuch, he transports Philip right to him. God never justifies in the NT apart from conscious knowledge…that is why Paul writes as he does in Romans 10 about the necessity of preachers being sent…his argument, “how will they be saved unless someone is sent” falls apart if, in fact, they are saved without someone being sent.

Hebrews tells that Abel’s faith was exemplary and that he was righteous - even though God in his providence had not revealed Christ, nor Israel, nor the Law, not the promise to Abraham etc… - and presumably without knowing such revelation we think that human’s cannot know God’s purposes? So Abel could not know any of these things and yet he is counted righteous - not because he knew them - but because he trusted God.

So I guess the assertion that “that God never justifies in the NT without conscious knowledge” demands IMO amplification. Conscious knowledge of what. Since the NT describes at least two figures, Abel and Enoch, one as righteous and the other as pleasing to God, who lack conscious knowledge of Christ, the Cross, the Resurrection, the Law, the Monarchy, Israel etc.

Dear one and all, I have not read all the responses to Phil’s original, but decided to respond directly. So apologies if what I write has been covered already.

Joshua

Now, the question comes up concerning what happens to those who do not follow Jesus in this life?  I believe that all who seek the truth will find Jesus - either in this life or in the life to come.
The problem I have with this statement Phil is that people don’t seek the truth (Romans 3:11)unless God enables them to. People are not morally neutral, everyone rejects God and his rule. God has revealed himself (general revelation - Romans 1:18-20) but they reject God’s revelation (vv.21-23). In our natural unregenerate state, our seeking of God will only lead people to a god of one’s own making.

Matt -

So, in some sense your question PP has got to be answered with a general “yes”—both personally and in general.

Hmmm… I thought I was asking an “A or B” question and I got a “yes” in reply. My fault I suppose for lack of clarity. The real question is “was this because it was before (in human terms) the time of Christ?”

IOW, does this leave open the possibility that there are people who are not “Christian” by our understanding (and will not become so while living) who are nevertheless destined for Heaven? Not a question of “can He?” so much as “does He?”

I (substantially) agree with what you’ve said, but I find it intellectually unsatisfying to get too close to reducing the whole thing to (oversimplified) “He saves who he saves how he saves them” - which largely obviates the need for an answer to the original question, doesn’t it? It would need to be replaced with the trite “why tell anyone about Christ if nothing you say makes a difference?”

(All in context with the last paragraph of my #23… sincde the answer would be the same.)

hi driver8,

I think you are asking for definitions that I have already given above to PP

Rene Descartes went into his favorite bar and the bartender asked “would you like your usual drink Monsieur Descartes?”

Descarted replied “I think not” and promptly disappeared.

PP,

Why on earth would God save through the promise as he was revealed to Abel after he has been fully revealed in jesus christ?

#70 I would ask - are there people like Abel now after the coming of Christ. Of course, it’s so much better to know the fulfillment (isn’t that one of Hebrews 11 emphases) nevertheless if one cannot reasonably know the fulfillment (as Abel and Enoch) and yet like them “trust in the promise of God” as you reasonably know it then God may account your “faith” as “approved” or “pleasing” and you as “righteous”.

At least such a train of thought is one stream of Christian tradition about those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the fulfillment in Christ.

Its an irrelevant question. God brought Abel to justifying faith in the Son as he had been revealed in the world at that time. That is the model. God brings those he chooses to justify to conscious knowledge of the Son as he is revealed in the world. Today, if God chooses to save a pagan, He will bring the Pagan to conscious faith in Jesus of Nazareth. He will not leave him wallowing in teachings and doctrines that lead only to hell.

Matt,

Why? I don’t know. Because He chooses to?

More importantly, is that the only revelation He made/makes short of a fully formed knowledge of Christ?

(insert standard disclaimer here)

There is no evidence that he chooses too. Only wishes.

And quite a bit of evidence that he chooses not too.

That’s certainly one way of interpreting what Scripture says. Namely that Abel and Enoch did what they ought in respect of what God had revealed at the time.

I would say that they did what they ought in respect of what they could reasonably know of God’s revelation. So asking are there folks who don’t know, through no fault of their own, what God has revealed is significant theologically.

As always thanks for the discussion.

“That’s certainly one way of interpreting what Scripture says. Namely that Abel and Enoch did what they ought in respect of what God had revealed at the time.”

No, they trusted, by grace, in who God gave them the grace to know and believe.

“I would say that they did what they ought in respect of what they could reasonably know of God’s revelation.”

Which is nothing. They could do nothing and know nothing salvific by reason.

“So asking are there folks who don’t know, through no fault of their own, what God has revealed is significant theologically.”

Human ignorance is always blameworthy (Romans 1:18-22) There is no excuse for it. God sometimes chooses to break through that willed ignorance and bring someone to saving faith. And when he does, he does so only and solely through faith in Jesus Christ.

“As always thanks for the discussion.”

sure

1. Yes - this is a given but as I tend to think grace co-operates (rather than competes) with nature - I think it’s both/and. Enoch and Abel did what they ought, and won approval for it, only by God’s grace.

2. What I mean is that it’s unreasonable to expect them to trust in say God’s action in giving the Law, or promising the Davidic line, or electing Israel, or sending Christ etc. So if one were to describe the propositional content of their “trust” it could not reasonably include such things.

3. Doesn’t Paul argue that such Gentiles ought to know - indeed in a way do do. That is, they’re held accountable for culpable ignorance.

This is somewhat pertinent to the discussion - I understand from some people working with Muslims in the last few years that many of those seeking to know the real Jesus had a vision of Christ, and came to the evangelists seeking to know what it meant.  Upon hearing the Gospel, they came to faith in Christ.

Our Almighty God and his saving work through the selfless sacrifice of his Son, Jesus, is best revealed through the Holy Bible, but not all have heard or taken to heart the Good Word.  (or have the opportunity for that matter).

I knew a woman who grew up in another faith, who in a time of trouble early in her childhood, experienced a comforting presence, the knowledge of which bore her through some very difficult times.  As an adult, she came to know our Savior, and finally understood in whole what she had glimpsed and clung to long before.

God, his purposes, and his abilities far outstrip our limited understanding.

This is somewhat pertinent to the discussion - I understand from some people working with Muslims in the last few years that many of those seeking to know the real Jesus had a vision of Christ, and came to the evangelists seeking to know what it meant.  Upon hearing the Gospel, they came to faith in Christ. 

Exactly, and a story I have heard from the lips of such a convert.

Which only goes to demonstrate the point Matt is making from the Scriptures - that when God saves, He actually saves.
If someone is given the Spirit of Christ, how can they not know Christ? The Scriptures testify that such a situation cannot exist.

The faith, which wins approval, pleases God, receives God’s approval and so forth in Hebrews 11 lacks “what was promised”. In what does this lack consist?

Blimey apologies for the repetition - short term memory going…I’m sure I came in here for something…

The faith, which wins approval, pleases God, receives God’s approval and so forth in Hebrews 11 lacks “what was promised”. In what does this lack consist? 

That’s an unfortunate translation of Heb 11:13. More accurately it might be translated:

They did not receive the things promised

[75] Posted by driver8

[A]re there folks who don’t know, through no fault of their own, what God has revealed

Here we see the critical assumption and the critical admission on display.  “Through no fault of their own.”  It is standard Christian orthodoxy that all men are sinful and worthy of Hell.  We are all of us from the moment of our conception worthy of judgment and eternal damnation.  Nothing must be added to us to make this true.  Nothing must be revealed to us to make this true.  It is simply a fact of our nature.  The fault is intrinsic to us.  We are sinners and therefore we sin.

But now the acid of contingency seeps its way into the received doctrines of the Faith.  It is assumed that men possess a sovereign choice in their own redemption.  If God desires that every man be saved, and the salvation of each man ultimately depends upon each man’s own choice, then it stands to reason that God would have to provide each man with the necessary information to exercise the power of that choice.  But empirical observation proves conclusively and irrefutably that He doesn’t.  The Gospel as presented in Scripture suddenly seems inadequate to the task.  There is an alternative conclusion, but that conclusion is considered even more unacceptable. 

The alternative is that God is grossly unfair.  We would be forced to conclude that God makes a way for all men to be saved by means of exercising a real choice, but does not give each man the opportunity of exercising that real choice.  The conclusion is therefore made that a man cannot be held accountable for his wrong choice unless he has the opportunity of real choice.  Thus we move man from a position of moral guilt to a position of moral quasi-neutrality.  He may have sinned, but he cannot fairly be held to account for those sins unless the choice is fairly offered and honestly rejected.  He occupies his current position “through no fault of his own.”  Yet we know that man is guilty before he makes the wrong choice.  He is guilty because he sins.  He is guilty because Adam sinned.  He is guilty by nature.  The sins he actually commits simply reveal this true nature.

In order to preserve both God’s reputation, and man’s sovereign choice, the exclusive nature of the Gospel gets compromised.  Some other mechanism by which God may save men is sought after.  The new mechanism resolves the contradiction between God’s apparent unfairness and man’s sovereign choice by defending this imperative at all costs: “Each man must be offered the choice!”  If the Gospel is not sufficient for the task, then there must be some unseen sub-Gospel mechanism at work that accomplishes the same outcome.  By necessity this mechanism will be found outside the Scripture, for it does not exist within the Scripture.  Its justification will therefore be philosophical.  You can recognize it by the paucity of Scriptural arguments to sustain it and a plethora of philosophy at its foundation.

carl

If the Gospel is not sufficient for the task, then there must be some unseen sub-Gospel mechanism at work that accomplishes the same outcome. By necessity this mechanism will be found outside the Scripture, for it does not exist within the Scripture. Its justification will therefore be philosophical. You can recognize it by the paucity of Scriptural arguments to sustain it and a plethora of philosophy at its foundation.

Carl, every so often you write a paragraph of such insight and clarity that I want to frame it.

It’s singular in v39, so perhaps “the thing promised” or “that which was promised” or perhaps as the NRSV “what was promised”. But I don’t think we can put too much weight on it since the singular is equivalent to plural “the promises” in v13. So there’s no distinction in meaning in Hebrews 11 between the plural “the things promised” (v13) and the singular “the thing promised” (v39).

I take it that the promise/promises - find their fulfillment, through the sacrfice of Christ, in the community coming to the “city of the living God”. So that Abel, Enoch et. al. had faith approved of by God and pleasing to him, but lacked this fulfillment.

I guess all I’m wondering is whether this kind of faith, of course by grace, might exist now amongst those who have not heard of Christ and so still have to come to “Mount Zion”?

I take it that the promise/promises - find their fulfillment, through the sacrfice of Christ, in the community coming to the “city of the living God”. So that Abel, Enoch et. al. had faith approved of by God and pleasing to him, but lacked this fulfillment.

Yes, the fulfilment in Hebrews is described in eschatological terms. So it has, in one sense, already arrived (ie 1:1-3 - we are in the “Last Days” - but it is still to be full consumated, as the language of the “City” points to.

What the writer is pointing out in Hebrews 11 is that all faith is like this. It trusts in a promise, despite not seeing the final outworking of the promise. So the heroes of faith trusted God’s promise and waited confiedntly for that thing which has not yet arrived.

I guess all I’m wondering is whether this kind of faith, of course by grace, might exist now amongst those who have not heard of Christ and so still have to come to “Mount Zion”?

To which I would respond, is such a person ever described in the Scriptures? The OT promises which the heroes of Heb 11 believed in were clearly Messianic. Moses, for example in v26, is described as reckoning Christ as of more worth than the treasures of Egypt.

To have not heard of Christ is to have not heard the promises and, therefore, to not have anything to put one’s trust in. QED to not be reckoned amongst those of faith.

#84 the point I’m making is, of course all making righteous - like Abel, is through grace - and all that is “pleasing” to God - like Enoch - is through grace - but there is a theological difference between being culpably ignorant (as in Romans 1) - that is not knowing things that one reasonably ought to have known - and invincibly ignorant - that is, trusting God but lacking knowledge of the fulfillment of ones trust in Christ. I used this language of “lack” because it is in Hebrews - though the faith of Abel, Enoch etc, is clearly presented not as damnable but as praiseworthy and God pleasing, it “lacked” fulfillment.

I don’t have time to trot through the monergism/synergism debates - and doubt that much new light will be thrown even should I do so. I did want to, and hope I have, reflected on one particular Scriptural passage in the light of Fr. Matt’s question.

I don’t have time to trot through the monergism/synergism debates - and doubt that much new light will be thrown even should I do so. 

I think in this case I agree that its useful to seperate the two issues.
What you are raising in the question of the object of faith, not how that faith came about. They are 2 important questions.

#89 well Abel is praised for trusting God enough to offer his sacrifice. Enoch’s trust in God led him to “please God”. Noah’s trust in God led him to build the ark. Abraham’s trust in God led him to trust God to give him land. The promises of land etc. - are certainly fulfilled in Christ and look forward to the “city that has foundations”. But their faith nevertheless lacks fulfillment - a fulfillment which is found in the great festal gathering at Mount Zion made possible through Christ’s sacrifice.

[90] driver8

I don’t have time to trot through the monergism/synergism debates

I am not surprised you do not want to debate it. And yet synergism is the tap-root of your entire argument.  Only once reject it, and this entire thread would collapse into dust. 

carl

Yes - that’s right - and likewise for you if monergism is false.

As an aside, Carl do you think synergism is heretical? For the uninitiated - this is the view that grace co-operates with creation - and thus crudely the view that grace empowers one to respond freely to God’s saving initiative.

[93] driver8

[D]o you think synergism is heretical?

It’s a hard question for me to answer directly.  I tend to equate ‘heretic’ with ‘non-Christian’ but I am not certain that I am using the word correctly.  Let me say then that I consider synergism to be:

1.  Inconsistent.
2.  False.
3.  Unbiblical.
4.  Motivated by a precommitment to ego-gratifying assumptions about the nature of man.

Certainly there are many Christians who are synergists.  Eventually, they won’t be. 

carl

Matt,

I read a bunch more.  The question is if God is a loving God why did he create so many Damned people?

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience e vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he h has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

I read a bunch more.  The question is if God is a loving God why did he create so many Damned people?

I am sure you are aware that the Apostle answers pretty much exactly that question in Romans 9:19-20. What do you make of his answer?

Hi all, just saw this thread…One comment on “the quote”.  Finding it staggering, I did a little googling and came across the following post from the Buddhist blogosphere:

http://dhammaprotector.blogspot.com/2009/09/did-buddha-prophesize-coming-of-jesus.html

The blogger here claims the quotations are spurious.  It is in fact repeated several times on Christian sites.

I also find it odd that, with several of our RC friends frequenting these boards, that there is not a single mention of Dominus Iesus on this thread, which seems to me to be the true “via media” in the debate.  Amazing clarity it can provide sometimes, that Magisterium…

Before I say the wrong thing ban me!!!

?

#53:  “Does God will the salvation of all people?”

This question brings us to the heart of the discussion, yet I note that no one has yet given a direct and unambiguous answer to the question. 

There is only one biblical answer:  yes.  Absolutely, unequivocally, unconditionally, uncontingently, yes.  God desires the eternal salvation of every single human being.  This answer is not philosophy; it’s the gospel. 

I realize, of course, that the Calvinists on this board disagree with this answer.  What can I say?  They are tragically and seriously wrong.  I wish I could say that this is minor issue, but it’s not and we should not pretend otherwise.  It cuts to the very heart of the revelation given to us in Jesus Christ.   

We can argue about specific biblical texts, but we cannot hope to get our exegesis right if we have not apprehended, in the most fundamental way, the infinite, unconditional, and gratuitous love of the Father for all of humanity.  It is the knowledge of this love—indeed, it is this love—that informs and guides our reading and interpretation of Scripture.  God does not desire the salvation of only the few or only the many—he desires the salvation of ALL.  Once this revelation is recognized and embraced in faith, then, and only then, can we enjoy fruitful discussion of how God concretely realizes his salvific will in history and beyond history.

Fr. Kimmel…of course, I agree, God desires that all repent and be saved.

And yet, he does not choose to save all.

102:  “Fr. Kimmel…of course, I agree, God desires that all repent and be saved. And yet, he does not choose to save all.”

So your answer, Fr Kennedy, is in fact, NO. 

Surely it makes no sense at all, on Calvinist terms, to speak of God not choosing, or choosing against, that which he desires.  For the eternal and omnipotent God there can be no disjunction between desiring and willing.  Given that God could have saved all—i.e., he could have brought all to repentance and faith—but has in fact only chosen to save some (many or few, it does not matter)—then we must say that God does NOT desire the salvation of all.

FrKimel

You find yourself ensnared in the very same dilemma in which you think the Calvinist is trapped.  I will simply ask you “Why did God create so many knowing they would be damned?  Why did He not stop it?”  For it is manifestly obvious that He could have created men with the ability to freely choose Him without the possibility of sin.  How do I know this?  Because the Christ freely choose to obey and yet could not sin.  He lived the life we should have lived.  His will is identical to ours except without sin.  It is to this image the believer is predestined to be conformed.  The redeemed will never sin again, and yet for eternity will freely choose to obey God.  He could have jumped right to this end state from the beginning.  He did not have to allow the possibility of sin to legitimize the choice of man to obey.  And yet He didn’t. 

So why did God create so many knowing they would be damned when He could have pre-empted it from the beginning?

carl

Surely, Fr. Kimmel, your understanding of Calvinism leaves much to be desired. It seems that when you engage with this topic, you tend to deal in half-baked stereotypes.

In any case, of course God desires that sinners repent and live. In the same way he desires that all men obey his commands with perfect righteousness. And yet he chooses not to bring that about.

You are conflating two distinct categories of willing

Matt,

I have a great deal of trouble with a Christian philosophy that trashes 1500 years of knowledge with a new understanding.  It is about as good as one that trashes 2000 years of knowledge with a new understanding.

Continued…

There is a zeitgeist in Calvinism, Catholic Bashing in the 15th and 16th centuries, just as there is a zeitgeist in the current revisionism.  Wonder what will be the trend in 2500 if there is a 2500.

I have a great deal of trouble with a Christian philosophy that trashes 1500 years of knowledge with a new understanding.  It is about as good as one that trashes 2000 years of knowledge with a new understanding. 

I do agree, which is why Matt and I both cited Romans 9.
Curious that you don’t want to engage with that 2000 year old knowledge.

Re: #104

Carl, you state (a) that God could have created free historical human beings who were incapable of sin and (b) that you know this because Jesus did not sin and could not sin.  Am I understanding you correctly? 

The critical flaw in your argument lies in (b):  Jesus was not a human person.  He was (and is) a divine Person who assumed human nature—this is why he was incapable of sin.  One may not infer from the hypostatic union that God could have created free human persons who were incapable of sin.  I’m not saying that I know (a) to be false.  I’m only saying that (b) does not prove that (a) is true. 

Regarding (a), is it conceivable that God could have created impeccable free human persons?  I honestly don’t know.  Thomists think it’s possible.  Personally, I do not see how a human person living in history could be said to enjoy free will if he is incapable of disobeying and rejecting God. 

I freely admit that the revelation of God’s infinite, absolute, and unconditional love and mercy poses all sorts of mysteries and interesting problems.  But better to find oneself in the right mysteries and problems than in the wrong ones.  And the ones posed by rigorous Calvinism are most definitely the wrong ones.

Fr Kennedy, it is certainly possible that my knowledge of Calvinism is half-baked, but I don’t think that is the case on the question before us. 

Let’s remember:  you are the monergist, not me.  As far as I can tell, my argument above obtains:  If God truly desires the salvation of every human being, then he will monergistically save every human being.  Why?  Because that’s what divine love does.  If omnipotent God chooses not to effectively save all but only some, then we know that he does not truly desire the salvation of every human being.  At this level there is no disjunction between what God desires and what he wills. 

Wouldn’t it be a lot easy to simply come clean and admit, as rigorous Calvinists have admitted before you, that God’s love is ultimately restricted to the elect?  There is something to be said for the clarifying doctrines of the Synod of Dort.

We have entered into the monergism/synergism thicket in a round about way and I still doubt that we will shed my light and risk unnecessary heat. Neverthless one way of trying to proceed that may be helpful is to identify those things on which we agree, where we disagree and as precisely a possible what is the cause of our disagreement.

Thus far I take as agreements - always acknowledging that we may specify the meaning of these things differently and so discover we disagree in some way about what these agreements imply:

1. God desires the salvation of all such that Jesus death is “for all”.
2. What God creates is good.
3. It is a genuine possibility that some may not be saved.
4. Human beings are, in some sense to be specified, “free”.

Is that fair?

Let us look at two of the Heroes of the Faith.

Abel was saved by God’s grace through his Faith (a gift of God), his brother’s offence at him was over the brother’s efforts to bring his works (the fruit ‘he grew’)as sacrifice displeasing God, while Able brought that which God gave (life), pleasing Him. 

Able turned (by God’s grace) in faith to someone (God Himself) outside himself for justification.

All false religions (and too many ‘Christians’) teach this ‘works righteousness’ the ‘moral code obedience’ system, the works of their own ‘law’ so to speak.  The works of the law (Mosaic, Noahic, Adamic, Canon, or Heathen) can not save.  We must repent and have faith in a redeemer. 

Job could have known of the promise to Eve, but they promise was not yet given to Abrham, yet he knew that his Redeemer lived, and would stand upon the earth, that he would see Him in his own flesh, his trust was not in his daily sacrifices, but in the Reedemer.

Can someone ignorant of the Gospel and name of Christ be brought by the Word (which is not dependent on human speech) to a knowledge of this Redeemer? Yes, He is no less powerful today than He was then.  Does He?  That is a harder question.  As someone else has said it is mere speculation.  We know what we are commanded to do, let us get about the task given.

Consider this also, is it not harder for one raised in a system that teaches only self-salvation (by works of law, and sacrifice or penance) to understand that salvation comes only as a gift of grace, than it would be for someone who has heard the Gospel?  Given that is easier to believe in what we have heard than in what we have not heard, is it not obvious that we should try to make everyone aware that not only do we not need to earn salvation, that they in fact can not do so? 

In other words, even if its possible that the yoke these works-gospels might be broken, is it not clear that these are more readily broken when the truth is known?  If we see them and do not warn them, their blood is on our hands - If they die in their sins after we have warned them, their blood is one them.  If we do not warn them, they shall still die in their sins, but their blood will be required at our hands.

I don’t know enough about Calvin let alone Calvinism but is it possible to identify more precisely the way in which God truly wills/desires/intends the salvation of all, but truly effects the salvation of some.

I guess I want to understand more about why if God is able to effect the salvation of all, he does not do so, given that he desires the salvation of all?

Probably the same reason He let Adam bite the fruit.

Way above my understanding, but He could have avoided the Cross if He’d just kept Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge.  He didn’t do that, so I’m left with, He doesn’t always impose His will on His creatures, though He certainly COULD do so if it pleased Him.

FrKimel,

. As far as I can tell, my argument above obtains:  If God truly desires the salvation of every human being, then he will monergistically save every human being.  Why?  Because that’s what divine love does…

Which is the flaw in your argument. You have presupposed the nature of God’s love and not allowed the Biblical evidence to wholly stand.

The divine love of God is expressed as “Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated”.

Or, as Carson helpfully notes in his excellent “The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God”, not all expressions of God’s love are the same. His love for the Son, His love for the world, His love for the elect and so on are all different loves.

You also appear unwilling to engage with or allow for the clearly stated Calvinist understanding that there is a distinction in the wills of God. I say this on the basis of an assumption of my own - that you are not ignorant of the things that you opine about, not least Calvinism.

Glad to see that posters regularly return to the scriptures, despite the tendencies of some to build bridges of “logic” that end up straying rather far from what Scripture tells us, into areas that it doesn’t tell us about (I wonder if there might be a reason for that…?)

Here is what one bunch of theologians thought about the issue in the 16th century:

Article XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God’s purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length by God’s mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.
  As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feeling in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchlessness of most unclean living no less perilous than desperation.
  Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.

The last sentence contains a very useful warning - I am really not sure what purpose of edification or evangelism is supposed to be served by some of the posts.

A further point - I have seen arguments of predestination used both for and against evangelism. The same for what I will call “anti-predestination” arguments (Arminian can be a very misleading term).

I guess my own views are probably closest to those of T. C. Hammond, so not as “calvinist” as some. But whatever, the doctrine of predestination does not drive me to evangelise, and indeed I know quite a number on whom it has the opposite effect (anyone who hangs around the various splinters of presbyterianism for any length of time will know what I mean).

Rather, as several on the list have already pointed out, I evangelise because I am commanded to do so.

So is this right as you see it, Scripture teaches that God elects whom he freely wills to elect and that Christ’s death is, in some sense, in God’s intention, “for all” and that not all are elect?

Yes.

Remember He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, before Adam ate, He was the Lamb Slain!  Know it meant Calvary, He let Adam chose dying and death, yet it was by that man, and not God, that death and sin came into the world.

Driver8,

Yes.

And no, human understanding can’t reconcile those two concepts, in my view.

There is a welter of things that we cannot reconcile: Our choices do matter, and yet God has known and determined since before time what must take place, and yet God also grieves genuinely over things that must happen, like those who reject him.

I do not think these concepts are fully reconcilable in our human understanding, any more than we can visualise eternity. But that doesn’t stop them from all being true.

(even Einstein and Hawking can’t visualise the eternal, they can only use brilliant maths to explain a little bit of how it works).

Fortunately, most of Scripture is *very* practical. When it tells me to preach the gospel to the unsaved, it doesn’t require me to resolve every issue about predestination to do so.

But Scripture is given for us - in order that we might know God’s character and purposes and learn to enter more deeply into his life - so it’s common to say that Scripture is sometimes mysterious but it’s unusual to say that the Scriptures contain irreconcilable truths about God. If such were true - I would want to ask why would God give Scriptures that show his purposes to be irreconcilable?

In other words, given that Scripture is given for our benefit, I would want to try harder to understand what has been revealed. Surely the Calvinist tradition doesn’t think the Scriptures are irreconcilable on this point?

Driver8,
Very good questions. Let me attempt a response:

1. Just because something is irreconciliable to my human understanding does not mean that it is irreconciliable to God. The closer we get to studying the very nature of the eternal God, the more we are likely to find things that don’t always make sense to us.

2. The Trinity is a good example: As I read it, the Scripture teaches plainly that God is one, and that God is three. As you rightly say, we should “try harder to understand what has been revealed”. And it is worthwhile to read some of the very learned and long discourses on the nature of the Trinity. But in the end, there is always going to part of it that we cannot understand, and in human terms we will not be able to fully reconcile the fact that God is truly One, and yet at the same time truly Three. Your reference to “mysterious” is well put.

3. I cannot speak for “the Calvinist tradition on this point”. Calvinists vary widely on this point, very widely in fact (let me just say that we tend not to fire muskets at each other anymore, at least not in a literal sense). However, just about everyone would concede that Sydney Anglicans are “calvinists” in a very real sense, so the following may help with understanding one part of the rich tapestry of Calvinism:

This is a quote from “In Understanding be Men” by T. C. Hammond of the Church of Ireland, who was Dean of Moore College in Sydney Archdiocese in the 1930s and arguably still THE most influential theologian in Sydney:

Much that is false has been written and much needless controversy has been pursued by theologians and philosophers on the subject of God’s electing grace. It is an outstanding case of the need for adhering to what Scripture actually states and for avoiding the temptation to construct a complete logical system. ... While it is true that Scripture teaches that it would be just and lawful for God to do what he wished with His own, the whole of Scripture is against the notion of any rigid arbitrariness in God.

What may be called the moderate Calvinist view appears to be in accord with Scripture and free from most of the causes for objection. In order that Christ might be presented with a redeemed church when He is revealed as supreme in the universe, God has ordained that at least some should be gathered out from the mass of men which had forfeited all claim to mercy by a deliberate revolt against God. This gathering of ‘the elect’ is effected by a preordained ‘“effectual calling’. [Hammond then expounds in detail on the implications of election]...

We are, however, assured from Scripture that whatever man may find himself outside the sphere of the covenant of redemption has not had his chances of coming to Christ reduced one iota by God’s electing grace. ...

Further on under the heading “Some cautions”, Hammond writes:

Both revelation and philosophy alike do not supply a complete explanation and the latter in an endeavour to present a uniform system has often presented the most improbable and conflicting views. There are some points in the scheme of Christian doctrine where a ‘reverent agnosticism’ and an earnest attempt to remain faithful to the biblical presentation are far preferable to the production of a completely ‘water-tight’ scheme. In our attempts to trace the operations of the divine purposes our minds only wreck themselves again and again. ...”

Arguably, Hammond’s view represents a strain of Calvinism that triumphed at the Synod of Dordrecht in 1619. If you are interested in understanding this variety of Calvinism (sometimes called 4 or 4 1/2 point Calvinism) then I do recommend getting this book. It is regularly reprinted by IVP.

It is also worth having a look at John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion” Book III, Chap XXIII, sections 13 and 14.

#122
1. Scripture is for humans - concluding that God gave Scriptures which humans cannot understand seems a very high theological price to pay (if pay it one must).

2. Can one hold to both the perspicacity of Scripture and the claim that Scripture contains irreconcilable truths - at the very least would you want to say that how the several irreconcilable truths cohere is not perspicacious?

3. The standard claim of Chalcedonian Trinitarianism is that the Trinity is not logically incoherent (from time to time that claim has mattered in apologetics in the Islamic world). So when we speak of mystery we mean not logical incoherence but the fact that, in some way, what we understand to be true of God is nevertheless inadequate to God’s life.

driver8,
I ain’t no Calvinist (just ask Carl, he’ll tell you that!). 

Still, the scriptures make it plain that His ways are above our ways.  When we come to a place where we can not reconcile what we know (from Scripture) with how we think(using our human intellect), we have to lay aside what we think, and accept what we know even when we can not compass what we know…

I sacrifice a coherent theology on the altar of a God who is beyond my comprehension, which is one aspect of His being that he has revealed to us in Scripture.  I hold that any theology that requires full comprehension of He whose thoughts can not be known to be a either a false theology, or one that understands a false God.

All the points in #118 are Scriptural and it was these, I believe, that were described as irreconcilable.

Of course all of our thoughts and experiences of God are human thoughts and experiences. God loves us so much that he reveals himself to us in the human words that Christ speaks and the human langauge of Holy Scripture. God, through Scripture, reveals his character and purposes in a way that we could not know without his revelation.

I take it that God shows himself to us and that we may understand him (as humans). When we say that God is a mystery we don’t mean that God might be hiding what he is truly like, or that we must say we can have no real idea of what he is truly like in some parts of his character (even if we want to name that “reverent agnosticism”) because we are human but that we can never understand God as God understands himself. Our relationship is always, by grace, of the creature to the Creator.

So mystery is not about logical incoherence, doctrinal complexity (the assertions about God that seem simpler are as mysterious as those that seem complicated) or agnosticism about what God is truthfully like, but about being human in relationship with the Living God.

We know that Christ died Once for All.
We know that narrow is the way, and few there be that enter in.
We know that many are called, and few chosen.

God can reconcile that which appears to us as irreconcilable - He has in fact reconciled us unto Himself!

I do not let my inability to understand facts keep me from accepting them.  Nor do I think my inability hinders God’s ability.  What Scripture has revealed as fact is fact, doesn’t matter if I reconcile it or not.

The revelation given us in Scripture is not, and can not be a complete one.  We can not think His thoughts, understand His reasons, we are bound by time, and finite in wisdom.  He is neither.  When he reveals that He is one, this true.  When He reveals that Father and Son are one, this is true.  When I admit that both statements are true, and that I can not reconcile them I do not denigrate scripture, I recognize my own inability to understand even all that He has revealed.  It is not the fault of scripture, or of His willingness to reveal Himself, it is a limitation born of the fallen nature of His creature.  To imply some failure of God, or the scriptures, as being at fault for our inability to reconcile in our minds the known truths of God is to lay the blame on the wrong party.

Irreconcilability of known truth is a consequence of being humans in a relationship with God.  We can know more than we can understand, because He has chosen to reveal to us aspects of Himself, that are above our understanding.  As the creatures we should not let this inability to understand hinder our joy in the knowledge.  Nor should we stop trying to put the pieces we have together to form a coherent understanding of Him.  Its just that we need to give up the pride involved in thinking we can force God into some comprehensible coherency of our making.

#115: “Which is the flaw in your argument. You have presupposed the nature of God’s love and not allowed the Biblical evidence to wholly stand.”

I would put it slightly differently:  I am presupposing the character of God as revealed in the teachings, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word, and his Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit, as attested by the Apostles.  That God is absolute love and infinite mercy is not an invention of philosophy—what philosophers ever said such a thing before the appearance of the gospel?—but divine revelation.  This revelation is the key to the right and proper interpretation Holy Scripture.  Without this key, one invariably gets lost in the biblical wilderness. 

Hence I cannot accept your criticism that I am not allowing “the Biblical evidence to wholly stand.”  What I am not allowing to stand is any human interpretation of Scripture that falsifies or distorts the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ.  I don’t need to get down into the nitty gritty of textual exegesis of Romans 9 in order to know that anyone who interprets it as supporting double predestination of the Calvinist variety is simply wrong, terribly, tragically, horrifyingly wrong, just as I don’t need to get into the nitty gritty of textual exegesis of John 1 to know that the anyone who interprets it as supporting an Arian interpretation of the nature of Christ is simply wrong.  I say this not because I believe I am a superior biblical scholar or because I am confident in my ability to prove my case in such a way that would satisfy most reasonable people.  Quite the contrary.  Precisely because my exegetical skills are so lacking, I am happy to yield the field to those who know the Bible far better than I.  I am more than confident that St John Chrysostom, St Theophylact, John Wesley, Karl Barth, Thomas Torrance, Ernst Kasemann, Joseph Fitzmyer, and N. T. Wright can adequately address, and if necessary refute, the double predestinarian interpretation of Romans 9.  But even if we find ourselves presently incapable of satisfactorily reconciling Rom 9 with the dogma of God’s universal salvific will, all we need do is to acknowledge the “difficulty.”  We do not abandon the faith of the Church because of exegetical difficulties. 

It was inevitable, of course, that a discussion of the salvific necessity of conscious faith in Jesus Christ should bring us back to the fundamental issue of who God is.  If our views on the nature and character of God are distorted, if we do not understand what it means for God to be a Trinitarian communion of infinite love and self-giving, to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we cannot begin to think rightly on the nature and necessity of saving faith.
   
Let me offer this practical test:  Does the Calvinist reading of Romans 9 accord with our Lord’s command to love our enemies?  Think on what this command means, not only for ourselves, but for God.  Can I truly I truly love my enemies and pray for them if I know that God excludes some (many? most?) of his enemies from his salvific will? 

“The soul cannot know peace unless she prays for her enemies. The soul that has learned of God’s grace to pray, feels love and compassion for every created thing, and in particular for mankind, for whom the Lord suffered on the Cross, and His soul was heavy for every one of us” (St Silouan).

Is it not this love that takes us into the world to proclaim the gospel and make disciples?

Driver8

So when we speak of mystery we mean not logical incoherence but the fact that, in some way, what we understand to be true of God is nevertheless inadequate to God’s life.

I think that puts it very well. The limitation is our human minds, not God’s truth. Particularly when it comes to things closest to the Divine nature, which is eternal, we are always going to find truths that our human minds cannot entirely reconcile.

I very much agree with you about the perspicacity of scripture. A simple child can understand the eternal truths delivered in it.

Bo in his posts puts this all a lot better than I can!

I don’t need to get down into the nitty gritty of textual exegesis of Romans 9 in order to know that anyone who interprets it as supporting double predestination of the Calvinist variety is simply wrong, terribly, tragically, horrifyingly wrong

Oh the irony! “I don’t need to get into a detailed exegesis of texts to know that you’re getting the Bible wrong”.

It is in the detailed exegesis that our theology is worked out.

Time and time again the Scriptures show God’s self-revelation of salvation - Mal. 1:2-3 and JOhn 6:37, 44 come immediately to mind as specific statements by God about salvation. No doubt your wider knowledge about how God reveals Himself allows you to negate these tremendously powerful statements.

I am surprised that you actually have so little confidence in the specific and detailed text of the Bible.

Can I truly I truly love my enemies and pray for them if I know that God excludes some (many? most?) of his enemies from his salvific will? 

Yes, of course. We are to be exactly like God. We love those that stand under condemnation, just like Him.

#129 Yes - that has to be right - Scripture in the context of the life of the church in its details has to where we turn. But we’re accountable to the whole warp and woof of Scripture.

I’ve found helpful James Kugel’s delineation of four assumptions shared by all ancient interpreters of Scripture:
1. Scripture is fundamentally cryptic.
2. Scripture is one great book of Instruction - that is it is all relevant now.
3. Scripture is perfect and perfectly harmonious.
4. All Scripture is from God.

As has already been noted, Dominus Iesus about says all you need to know!

Driver8,
I don’t ‘buy’ supposition 1.

Scripture is only ‘fundamentally cryptic’ to those whose ears are not for hearing, whose eyes are not for seeing, those who have been blinded; that is to say those who have not the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.  We who are made members of his body by Grace through Faith have Him, and He will lead us (who are willing to follow) into all truth.

Well, I kind of feel responsible in a way that that this thread got kind of off track, especially since I had to take a few days away and didn’t get back to completing my thoughts. But, David at #52 ends up where I was going, although I might have a difference on the philosophical argument of Paul in Romans 2:14-15, especially as one reflects forward from the OT to the NT (and I am going to be purposely vague here so as to not kick off more discussion).
As Matt and others have pointed out, it is not for us to assume it is better for people to be left in ignorance of the Gospel; but rather, the command is quite the opposite - to proclaim it to all peoples and the ends of the earth so as people seek truth and God reveals it, we can bring the fullness of revelation to them.
Finally, I believe God extends the call of Grace in a way it is effectual for the ones God has elected to respond to the call. As Christ followers, it’s not for us to discern this, but simply present the Gospel to all of creation and allow the Holy Spirit to reveal truth, to which the Gospel testifies.

One of the biggest flaws in the proposition that other religions might be conduits through which the benefits of Christ’s life, death and resurrection are given to faithful adherents…is the fact that all other religions bear the very marks that we are warned against. They mix various truths—consistent with various aspects of scripture with blatant lies. So the character of other faiths is not “truth refracted” in various hues in lesser degrees. Rather, biblically speaking they are lies taught by demons disguised as angels of light…lies out of which people must be rescued not arks of salvation.