But there is a difference, is there not, between saying that salvation comes to those who have faith in Christ and that salvation only comes to those who have faith in Christ?
These statements are corollories for me. I’m just not convinced by universalism, all people stand condemned of their sin of rebellion against God and only faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection can restore us to a right relationship with God.
But, at the same time, those who don’t have faith in Christ are not automatically predestined to damnation, as a just God could (but not necessarily would) choose to redeem some in his grace and unknowable wisdom.
I guess my question would be to ask you why this is the case?
Kathryn Roach - 04 February 2009 12:14 AM
I’m just not convinced by universalism, all people stand condemned of their sin of rebellion against God and only faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection can restore us to a right relationship with God.
I’d suggest that one need not jettison a belief in the general condemnation of all humankind as a universalist - I certainly don’t. The question of whether explicit faith in Jesus is needed is the area we are currently exploring.
Kathryn Roach - 04 February 2009 12:14 AM
But, at the same time, those who don’t have faith in Christ are not automatically predestined to damnation, as a just God could (but not necessarily would) choose to redeem some in his grace and unknowable wisdom.
I don’t think that’s too far removed from my belief on the matter, albeit that I take the stance to what I consider the logical conclusion. I think that God probably will choose to save all in his grace and unknowable wisdom, but then again, he may choose not to and he could quite justly choose not to take this course of action should he so desire.
I guess two of the questions worth asking in the conversation are:
(1) Is God obligated to condemn anyone?
(2) If we understand God as sovereign, would he have the “right” to save all, should he so desire?
The two questions could be answered as?
1. Yes, God is obligated to condemn all humans, except only for Jesus. Only Jesus failed to break any aspect of the law [which I note includes “honour the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength”] and was accordingly in a right relationship with God at all times therefore is able to present himself before God as wholly blameless and without sin and deserving of no condemnation.
2. God is sovereign, and yes, a sovereign “god” would be perfectly entitled [ie ie “have the right to”] to save all should he choose - but where does that leave righteous judgment? It leaves sin unpunished and uncondemned, making that “god” an unjust and unholy “god”. Our God is totally sovereign; and yet he is also totally just, and the only possible outcome of a God who is totally sovereign and totally just is condemnation of any and all sin, UNLESS God also is merciful (which he is) and he provides a means of satisfaction of the necessary wrath that a holy God must have against those who break his holy and unimpeachable laws. Only after there is satsifaction of the righteous wrath and condemnation of sin held by a holy and just God can the mercy of God be shown through the work of Jesus Christ in his life, death and subsequent resurrection. Net result - savlation by grace alone, by christ alone, by faith alone. No grace, Christ or faith = no salvation. Simple as that.
[Let’s not get TULIP going here - put it in a new thread please!]
[Ed - sp Again!]
[ Edited: 04 February 2009 06:56 AM by Kathryn Roach]
God is only obliged to condem all people if you hold to a Calvinistic theology and all your scripture reading is read through that world view.
I think a better understanding of the Scripture’s is that humans have already condemned themselves through a broken relationship with God…and it is through this broken relationship we are condemned.
Scripture clearly shows that God is a relational God. He made us in the beginning to have relationship with him…and has continually called us (all humans) to come to him to build relationship.
Jesus built relationship when he came to earth…God communing with His people…. his mission was to draw ALL people back into relationship with the living triune God.
P.S The reason Jesus was able to keep in a right relationship with God wasn’t because he perfectly kept the law… though he did do this…its because he was God and had always been in a perfect relationship with God the father…. The universe would have been destroyed if Jesus had not ever been in perfect relationship with His father for the relationship within the God head would have been destroyed.
David B, where do you think the bible leaves that possibility open?
In:
(a) the example of Melchizedek, who seems to come from nowhere yet is described as “a priest of God most high”’
(b) more generally, the way in which Romans (and Hebrews) talks about righteousness being “by faith from first to last” (Romans 1) even for Old Testament figures who had never heard of Jesus (Romans 4, the “by faith” list in Hebrews). The Romans 3 references to faith in Christ is therefore not the only form of “righteousness by faith” that the Bible contemplates.
I appreciate that some might say that each of these examples is linked to Judeo-Christian history, and therefore cannot be generalised more broadly. Equally, however, this might merely be a function of the limited scope of the Bible story. Thus, I don’t think the Bible rules out that there could be other people outside the scope the Bible who are saved “by faith” also.
On the question of universalism, I think universalism can be ruled out by the existence of sin - that is, I think it is impossible to believe that, in practice, everyone who has ever lived has come to a saving faith in God.
David C, anybody who takes the trouble to read the Bible will see that it is not universalist. There are warnings of God’s judgment on almost every page. The universalist needs to make a case for why all of those passages don’t mean what they appear to say.
David M, while a tentative universalist, I still believe in the idea of judgment. The two concepts are no more contradictory than discipline co-existing with son/daughtership.
While I’m sure you’d still disagree with my position, could it be possible that you are creating a strawperson of the universalist position? Perhaps rather than dismissing my position out of hand and simply asserting that my belief is unbiblical, wouldn’t it be more productive to seek to understand what exactly I believe and why I believe what I do?
Just to let people know, I’m off to Orange overnight and won’t have access to the internet until late tomorrow night. Thus, if you find I haven’t responded to your question yet, this is why, and be assured that I will make a reasonable effort to do so when I get back.
[ Edited: 04 February 2009 02:55 PM by David Castor]
In Dominic Steele’s talk on the bushfires today, he made a short comment about the infants that perished and where they’ll be headed.
He said he didn’t know, but he knew that God will judge in a just and loving way. So on the topic of infants who’ve died, that’s the same as my preexisting opinion.
In Dominic Steele’s talk on the bushfires today, he made a short comment about the infants that perished and where they’ll be headed.
He said he didn’t know, but he knew that God will judge in a just and loving way. So on the topic of infants who’ve died, that’s the same as my preexisting opinion.
Hope I’ve quoted him right!
But that’s not really saying anything significant, is it? It’s merely saying that (1) I don’t have a clue about what God would do; (2) I don’t want to be raked over the coals for suggesting that some of these infants will be headed for Hell; and/or (3) I don’t want to be raked over the coals for suggesting that (some of these) infants will be headed for Heaven, notwithstanding the fact that they haven’t made a personal commitment to Christ yet. In short, it’s your classic “I don’t want to touch this with a forty-foot pole” response.
Or
4 Where the Scriptures speak, we speak. Where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.
I was taught this motto in my Churches of Christ ministry training. i think there is merit in it, but I’m not completely happy with it.
Well that’s good to know Mike ;) A similar question comes along the lines of: What about my grandparent who has dementia?
I have to say I do agree with DC above regarding the ‘I don’t know but God is just’ response…
David Castor - 11 February 2009 07:45 PM
But that’s not really saying anything significant, is it? It’s merely saying that (1) I don’t have a clue about what God would do; (2) I don’t want to be raked over the coals for suggesting that some of these infants will be headed for Hell; and/or (3) I don’t want to be raked over the coals for suggesting that (some of these) infants will be headed for Heaven, notwithstanding the fact that they haven’t made a personal commitment to Christ yet. In short, it’s your classic “I don’t want to touch this with a forty-foot pole” response.
If you really don’t know what happens, then you have to leave it at that and say it with a fair dose of humility.
When you qualify it with ‘but God will judge in a just and loving way’, then you owe it to the audience to explain a bit about what you mean by God’s just and loving judgement, which usually means some people making it and some people don’t.
Just saying “I don’t know but I’m sure it will all end happily ever after” so the audience can go “Ahhhh” in relief doesn’t really cut it, and nor does the dog-whistling double-speak where you drop judgment for the Christian audience, and “I don’t know” and love and justice for the rest, so everyone feels good and you haven’t had to actually touch the issue.
[In short, it’s your classic “I don’t want to touch this with a forty-foot pole” response.
No, I don’t think so David, with the greatest of respect. Just because a statement is difficult to unpack in content, doesn’t make it untrue or devoid of epistemic value. One might speak of a surgeon undertaking brain surgery, “I don’t know how the surgeon will do it, but they’ll do it skillfully” isn’t a cop out on explaining the ins and outs of the methodology of the actual surgery, it’s merely a statement of fact which is true which does have a lot of unpacking to do but unless you’re trained as a brain surgeon you won’t be able to do so. I think similarly with saying what Dominic said (and what I said in my post above #3) isn’t avoiding the issue, it’s actually stating the truth of the situation. What else can we say? We’re not God, his word doesn’t disclose how he’s going to do it, so why should we be expected (or even be able) to identify and articulate the ins and outs of the methodology and results God will employ in executing his holy, righteous and just judgment.
As discussed above, that may well be the best response we have with our limited minds. I’m just trying to ascertain through this thread whether there are bible verses or insights that I’ve missed in the analysis of the topic. So far reminders of some verses, but no extra ones yet.
Of course, happy to be proven wrong on Judgment Day should God lean more towards the “those that haven’t had the opportunity to respond will all go to hell” or “they’ll all be saved”.
God is merciful and justic, everybody will knee infront of Jesus. If any body does not meet the Savior (Christ) will not go to the hell or heaven. who will take our soul from our flash, an angle of Lord. where will he carry us? he will do as the will of God. an Infant will not go anywhere before meeting the Lord and hear the good news of him. do you believe that Jesus is present there?
do you know when he died on cross, where he did go? he did go for visiting them, one by one, not in a hurry , but in the best way, in the most soft behavior, because he is the merciful kind Lord and out of this world , there is not anything named “the time”.
who will believe him and confess to him (everything he /she did) will be save for heaven . who will not believe him? the one who did not do good things in his life and was enemy for Jesus wisely and in the brightness of knowledge, he/she will not believe him and his power to forgiveness
And the one who will find his mistakes , will regrat and confess kneeling in front of him, if only believe that he is the one who can forgive the sins.
Infants will believe him , because they are not his enemy.
if you ask me “where is the justice” in this story, i will tell you, so many workers came to garden just before the evening. they will be paied as the people who came in the garden in the morning.
Jesus says: everybody who is not against us, is with us. and he will save all of his sheep, he is the best sheperd.
Not sure how God will judge those who had no chance to hear about Jesus. However, I do know the God who judges and as Mousa pointed out God is just. I know all will be judged according to God’s justice which thankfully is fair better than any man’s, it is not corrupt like we are.
It is not for me to judge the heart of men, I leave that up to Jesus the best Shepherd and the only one worthy to judge us all.
JN 5:19 Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
JN 5:24 “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. 25 I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
JN 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. 30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
do you know when he died on cross, where he did go? he did go for visiting them, one by one, not in a hurry , but in the best way, in the most soft behavior, because he is the merciful kind Lord and out of this world , there is not anything named “the time”.
Hi Mousa,
Over a year in Australia already hey? Wow, time flies. It must have been quite a year for you and your family!
Now, I’m not sure exactly how Jesus will meet with and judge those who have not heard about him, because I’m not sure that the bible spells it out. The first few chapters of Romans clearly says that no-one can use ignorance of the gospel as an excuse against God, but on the other hand, we know that God is kind and fair and merciful, and that none of us ‘deserved’ to be forgiven.
But I just wanted to highlight Mousa’s paragraph above for another topic, and that is how God listens to prayer. Was any one else reminded of C.S.Lewis’s thoughts that because God is outside of the limitations of space-time, He can ‘tune in’ to listen to us as we pray as if we were the only people in existence? It might not matter that a billion other people are praying at the same time, because our God can give us all His attention at that ‘moment’ because He has all of eternity to really listen to us.
So even from our perspectives of rushed, busy lives, it is hard to imagine the Almighty stooping down to listen to us as intently as we might book in special one-on-one time with our kids, this argument by C.S.Lewis seems to indicate how tenderly God can ‘zoom in’ and focus on just us, while we pray, because as Mousa says
[null]Romney hopes to win two more US statesSydney Morning Herald[{}]AP Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, looking to extend his winning streak in the race for the US presidential nomination, has focused on abortion, religious freedom and gay marriage in an intensified effort to win over social conservatives as ...
[null]Romney hopes to win two more US statesSydney Morning Herald[{}]AP Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, looking to extend his winning streak in the race for the US presidential nomination, has focused on abortion, religious freedom and gay marriage in an intensified effort to win over social conservatives as ...
[null]Political Geography: MinnesotaNew York Times (blog)[{}]The area, dotted with megachurches, is predominately exurban and has a significant evangelical community. It is probably the most reliably Republican of all Minnesota's congressional districts. The Second Congressional District, is comprised of seven ...
[null]Political Geography: ColoradoNew York Times (blog)[{}]This is the heartland of Colorado's evangelical community. Focus on the Family is based here. In 2008, among the state's most heavily populated counties, Mike Huckabee did best in El Paso County and, to the south, Pueblo County.and more»
Political Geography: Colorado New York Times (blog) This is the heartland of Colorado's evangelical community. Focus on the Family is based here. In 2008, among the state's most heavily populated counties, Mike Huckabee did best in El Paso County and, to the south, Pueblo County.
[null]How Bob Crow became the voice of reasonTelegraph.co.uk (blog)[{}]Or the similarly "independent" inquiry into euthanasia that was funded by two of its leading advocates (Bernard Lewis and Sir Terry Pratchett) and chaired by a third (Lord Falconer), yet generally reported as an unbiased study.
How Bob Crow became the voice of reason Telegraph.co.uk (blog) Or the similarly "independent" inquiry into euthanasia that was funded by two of its leading advocates (Bernard Lewis and Sir Terry Pratchett) and chaired by a third (Lord Falconer), yet generally reported as an unbiased study.
[null]Heavy lies the head with Kevin in townThe Australian[{}]Her rallying call set off a fleeting vibe of bipartisanship at St Paul's Anglican Church in Manuka yesterday, but the spirit did not last beyond the return ComCar journey to The Hill. "Make my day," Dirty Tony told his colleagues in their partyroom ...
[null]Hating bankers a global sportThe Australian[{}]Such rare political consensus on who to blame was sanctified by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who in his Christmas Day sermon denounced "financial speculation" for the disintegration of British society. Along with a formidable cast of ...
RSS Feed