116 replies to this topic

[MorningStar]

I raised this issue with a guy I dated years ago.  He stated that you had to believe in Jesus in order to be saved and insisted that being a Mormon didn't qualify me.  I asked him, "What about the countless people who never heard of Christ?  What happens to them?"  He said, "They might be able to find inspiration through nature ....."  

That doesn't add up.  I love our church's doctrine that states everyone will have the opportunity to hear the Gospel and accept it.

[calmoriah]

MorningStar, on 08 June 2011 - 11:53 PM, said:

I raised this issue with a guy I dated years ago.  He stated that you had to believe in Jesus in order to be saved and insisted that being a Mormon didn't qualify me.  I asked him, "What about the countless people who never heard of Christ?  What happens to them?"  He said, "They might be able to find inspiration through nature ....."  

I assume the idea is that the inspiration is somehow doctrinally correct where LDS beliefs in Christ's Atonement are sufficiently different from the truth to render our faith null and void, but that begs the question how the inspiration could be detailed enough to save the individual without any details about Christ himself on the one hand, but not allow those who have these details about Christ (though along with some misunderstandings) the same blessing.

[calmoriah]

PacMan, on 08 June 2011 - 06:44 PM, said:

P.S.

Rob,



When you are talking of an omniscient being, the distinction is illusory.  The chain of inevitability was known and set, meaning the source of imperfection was ultimately God.

Even if God is not the ultimate source, he would have been aware of the sins to come and done nothing to stop them, similar to a gun store owner who sells a gun and ammo after the individual tells him in detail how he is going on a rampage intending to kill as many people as possible and the only thing he does is to tell the person not to do it though he has the ability not only to stop the man, but to change him or the circumstances in such a way that he never even considered to do such harm in the first place.  While the gun store owner may not be technically responsible, there seems a moral dimension that can only be addressed by demonstrating some greater moral need for the owner to do nothing to interfere with this evil even with his knowledge and abilities that would allow him to do so though there is no moral need restricting him from fully acting after the fact.  For those who believe that God created the universe solely for his own glory or to demonstrate his ultimate sovereignty over all, it seems that it must end up being a trust issue that there is actually a greater moral reason that God did things this way.

It does seem problematic to me to call God the "First Cause" and then state that he is not ultimately responsible for the evil that occurs.  That seems a contradiction of what "First Cause" implies...

Edited by calmoriah, 09 June 2011 - 01:13 AM.

[Pa Pa]

MorningStar, on 08 June 2011 - 11:53 PM, said:

I raised this issue with a guy I dated years ago.  He stated that you had to believe in Jesus in order to be saved and insisted that being a Mormon didn't qualify me.  I asked him, "What about the countless people who never heard of Christ?  What happens to them?"  He said, "They might be able to find inspiration through nature ....."

That doesn't add up.  I love our church's doctrine that states everyone will have the opportunity to hear the Gospel and accept it.

No it does not, our nature would lead us elsewhere.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

  Your questions are shown as block quotations, with my comments following.

  

nackhadlow, on 08 June 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:

Would Adam and Eve – being created perfectly – also, in your view, have had the equal disposition to sin? Or is their giving in to temptation viewed as a specific, especially evil act of knowing Rebellion (which may not be your position – I understand that is the Jehovah’s Witness view of Adam)? Or was it just a mistake? ... I guess this reinforces my question concerning the difference between fallen man, and unfallen man (apart from physical/mortal) aspects because it appears that both are inclined to sin.

  Adam and Eve were created innocent but not yet “perfect.” They had no inclination or disposition either to sin or not to sin. Thus, their sin was committed without being in any sense the product of a corrupt or sinful disposition. They rebelled against God by directly disobeying his explicit commandment. That act shows that one need not have a predisposition to sin in order to commit sin. I would argue that the same thing applied in the case of Satan and the demons: their initial choice to rebel against God was the freely chosen act of rebellion and in no sense a product of a predisposition to sin.

  

Quote

So I take this to mean you believe children who have not reached moral accountability are redeemed from physical corruption (which they inherited from their parents). Is there any other kind of inherent corruption they would have that would need to be redeemed from?

  Yes, I would say that the whole constitution of a human being from the beginning of his or her existence is physically, intellectually, emotionally, morally, and spiritually corrupt or defective. In the resurrection we will have all of this corruption overcome by the transforming work of the Spirit in making us perfectly whole beings confirmed in holiness and goodness. But a child, though existing in a corrupt state, has not reached the point of development necessary to commit moral or spiritual sin, and so will not be held liable for any such sin.

  

Quote

So let me try to rephrase. Men are saved through expressing faith in the redemptive power of God, according to the degree in which God has revealed himself to them. Since God is Christ (or rather, since Christ is God), all Salvation would come through Christ. If this is correct, does this not needing to know the correct specifics of Christ-in-the-flesh only work as being valid prior to the Resurrection? IE, could individuals have a degree of light in the True God following the Resurrection, not knowing of Christ, and still obtain Salvation by God (Christ?) without knowing of His Incarnate Atonement?

  Hypothetically, yes, as I think I indicated. However, there is a difference between, say, an Israelite and a Hindu in the fifth century BC, insofar as the Israelite has received some special revelation about the identity and nature of the true God and the Hindu has not. This means that the Hindu would need to have a faith to some extent at odds with the religions of his environment in order to trust in the true God for salvation. The same concern applies to the Hindu in the fifth century AD. The faithful pre-Christian Israelite knows that the LORD is God and trusts in his mercy alone for his life. We have little or no reason to be confident that significant numbers of people outside the reach of the knowledge of the God of Abraham, before or after the coming of Christ, trust in the mercy of the true Creator. That is why I take a kind of cautious agnostic stance on that issue.

  

Quote

Again, I will try to rephrase my understanding for your correction. To even those who had no contact with Israel’s prophetic revelations (the only ones, as far as you are willing to posit, I presume), there may have been some divine light given as revealed through the creation, that all should have recognized, that would make them accountable to know that:

  a) There is a God

  b) You are accountable to Him

  c) You fall short of what He wants of you

  Therefore, is it your view that everybody in the world who comes to a state of moral accountability of necessity inherently knows, or will know these things?

  If not, are those who do not come to inherently realize these things still accountable for it? Or is it just your belief that, biblically, everybody (who is not a morally/intellectually underdeveloped person) must somehow in some way know all of these things?

  It’s complicated. Those who reach a state of sufficient moral and intellectual capacity so as to be accountable to God are accountable not only for the way they behave toward other people (their morality) but also for the way they behave toward supernatural beings (their religion). God holds people accountable and guilty for worshiping idols as well as for committing sexual sin. Both types of sin reflect humanity's fallen, corrupt condition. In general, people have enough information from nature and conscience to know that there is a Creator who transcends the natural world, that he should not be worshiped in idols, and that he is displeased by idolatry and murder and immorality and lying and so forth. In general, people suppress these truths and behave in ways that they should recognize are wrong. I am getting all of this from Romans 1:18-31, as you probably know. Saying that they “inherently know” these things may not be the best way of putting it. In a sense they don’t know them because they suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18), but this is a culpable ignorance.

  

Quote

Is it your view that it is better to have been created and end up in Hell, then to never have been created at all?

  Better for the individual who ends up in Hell? Of course not. Jesus said that it would have been better for Judas Iscariot if he had never been born (Matt. 26:24). Perhaps we haven't made something clear: although God owes no one anything, he is also just and would not consign someone like Judas Iscariot to Hell without just cause. So while Judas can’t justly complain about his punishment, I am not suggesting that Judas should be happy about it or grateful just for having been alive. Had he truly been grateful while he was still alive, he would not have turned on the One who gave him his life in the first place. I’m afraid his time for being grateful for his life is past.

  

Quote

Would this, then, place a huge burden on the Saved to participate in vigorous Missionary work? Would there be an inherent responsibility (“burden”) on the part of an individual who had the means to provide the News of Salvation, but chose not to? Although I understand the choice not to would have no eternal consequences, it being a “work” – or would the fact that one did not participate in evangelization be evidence that the individual was not actually Saved to begin with?

  This is really a different topic. Yes, those who are saved have a responsibility to spread the gospel of salvation. Lack of concern for the unevangelized would be one symptom (not necessarily a “litmus test”) that might call into question the genuineness of a person’s profession of faith in Christ. This doesn’t mean that God expects every Christian to be a foreign missionary, but it does mean that every Christian should participate in and support evangelism in some way.

  

Quote

This would lead to an interesting philosophical question. If God is viewed as being infinite in Mercy (do you hold this? The question is moot if you do not), and the infinitely merciful God does not offer mercy to all, I’m guessing that extending the option of mercy to more people couldn’t make God more merciful, correct? Would an infinitely merciful God not inherently offer mercy to all?

  You seem to be using “infinitely” in a quantitative way to express the results of God's attribute of mercy. Such a usage would prove too much. If we insist that God must be “infinitely” merciful, then why not claim that God not only must offer mercy to all but must actually show mercy to all without regard to faith or life or anything at all? In short, the reasoning you seem to be suggesting here leads ineluctably to universalism.

  And why single out the attribute of mercy? Why not ask if God is “infinitely just” or “infinitely holy” or even “infinitely wrathful”? After all, the Bible describes God as just, holy, and wrathful, not just as merciful.

  The Bible does not speak of God’s dispositions toward creatures in terms of being “infinite.” It teaches neither that God is wrathful or just without limits, nor that he is merciful without limits. I don’t see how he could be both, frankly; that would seem to be contradictory. So we should refrain from using such language with regard to God’s dispositions toward creatures, and especially from making theological deductions from such biblically groundless premises as that God is “infinitely merciful.” The Bible says, rather, that God is merciful toward those to whom he chooses to be merciful (Exod. 33:19; Rom. 9:15, 18). I realize this is an unpopular doctrine, but there it is.

  

Quote

So God is not responsible for their nearly inevitable damnation. The responsibility would be:

  1) Adam and Eve’s

  2) Their Own

  3) Any living Christians who had the means and opportunity to deliver them the Gospel message, but did not.

  There are different kinds of responsibility. Adam and Eve are responsible directly for their own sin and they are historically responsible for the corrupt state of the whole human race. I am responsible for my own sin, however; Adam and Eve are not responsible when I lose my temper or neglect to pray. I would therefore be responsible for my own condemnation, although God was merciful and redeemed me in order to spare me what I deserve. Christians are responsible to spread the gospel, and we sin when we neglect or shirk this responsibility, but the unevangelized person is still responsible for his or her own sin and deserving of condemnation. Finally, God is responsible for creating the world and in some sense he takes responsibility for what happens in it. That is, God might have created a universe without creatures capable of rebelling against him, but he chose to create this universe instead. Those other kinds of universes probably would have been far less interesting and probably would not have included creatures capable of goodness and love, either. I trust that God knows what he is doing and that this world, though not the best world possible, is the world through which God is bringing about the greatest possible good (see Rom. 8:28).

  

Quote

So if I understand, you believe, somewhat opposite to a degree of LDS, that instead of ‘degrees of glory’, there are ‘degrees of eternal damnation’?

  I wouldn’t be troubled by that way of putting things. Evangelicals commonly, though not universally, think that there will be “degrees of reward” for the redeemed, but they understand this in the context of all redeemed people living in one united new heavens and new earth, rather than the LDS concept of three separate heavenly kingdoms and degrees of glory within the celestial kingdom.<br style="mso-special-character:line-break"> <br style="mso-special-character:line-break">

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You asked:

calmoriah, on 08 June 2011 - 04:59 PM, said:

Clarification please:So God is only our creator in the sense he created the world and the mechanism for which we come into birth, but he is not responsible for our creation (in that he made the choice to create us), but rather our parents are through their own actions?

God is responsible for our conception and birth via his providential rule over and involvement in the universe, but this does not mean that he "makes us sinful," as people often misunderstand the doctrine to imply.

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

I had written: "Indeed, God owes us absolutely nothing (Job 1:21-22; 2:10)." You replied:

PacMan, on 08 June 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

Oddly, yes he does.  Not by virtue of who we are or anything we've done, but by his own actions.  In that he is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), his grace to one binds him to extend the same grace to all.  Thus, he IS obligated.  In other words, he owes us only because he told us he'll give it to us.  I don't want to bring in terrestrial principles of contract law; i.e. reliance, estoppel, etc., but let me simply say that our claim is perhaps best analogized as vested third-party beneficiaries.  Indeed, the commonality of the laws is one of - if not justice - then equity.  And God is equitable.

The biblical principle that God is not a respecter of persons cannot be legitimately pitted against the equally biblical principles that God owes no one anything and that God shows mercy to some and not to absolutely everyone. Your deduction that God's "grace to one binds him to extend the same grace to all" is flatly contrary to the Bible. What God reveals in Scripture takes precedence over our theological deductions. In context, Acts 10:34 (for example) simply means that God does not restrict salvation to Jews. It does not mean that God is obliged to show mercy to everyone or to save everyone. See my response to nackhadlow for more on this point.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

calmoriah, on 09 June 2011 - 01:00 AM, said:

I assume the idea is that the inspiration is somehow doctrinally correct where LDS beliefs in Christ's Atonement are sufficiently different from the truth to render our faith null and void, but that begs the question how the inspiration could be detailed enough to save the individual without any details about Christ himself on the one hand, but not allow those who have these details about Christ (though along with some misunderstandings) the same blessing.

I think my answer will surprise you. Hypothetically:

• Benjamin is an Israelite living in the fifth century BC. He knows that Yahweh is God and trusts in Yahweh alone for his salvation. He doesn't know that Yahweh will become incarnate, die on the cross for his sins, and rise from the dead. In my view, Benjamin is saved and will spend eternity in the Father's presence. He will not need to have anyone come to him in the spirit world and tell him about the restored gospel. He does not need anyone to get baptized on his behalf.
• Judah is a Jew living in the tenth century AD. He knows that the LORD is God and if you ask him he will profess to trust in the LORD alone for his salvation. However, he has heard and rejects the Christian message that the LORD provided salvation by becoming incarnate as Yeshua, dying on the cross for our sins, and rising from the dead. Instead, Judah claims that God will accept him on the basis of his piety and fidelity to the Talmud, and that no sacrifice for sins is needed. Judah, I'm afraid, is not saved.
• Kuku is an African tribesman living in an unknown century. He has never heard of Yahweh or Jesus. His tribe is animistic, worships idols, and practices headhunting. Kuku is troubled by these things and realizes there must be a divine Spirit greater than the land or the idols of his people. He prays to the Great Spirit, admitting that he is lost and begging the Great Spirit to have mercy on him. If I'm right, Kuku is saved. When he comes into the presence of Jesus Christ, the Lord will tell him, "I am that Great Spirit to whom you appealed for mercy, and I obtained that mercy for you when I died to atone for your sins."
• Chuck is a Jehovah's Witness living in the twenty-first century. He denies that Jesus is Jehovah (Yahweh). He claims to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but he understands this to mean that Jesus ceased to exist when he died and was then re-created three days later as a non-physical, angelic spirit creature. He also professes to accept Jesus' ransom sacrifice for his sins, but at the same time maintains that to be saved one must associate with Jehovah's organization on earth, refuse to celebrate birthdays, Christmas, or Easter, refrain from giving or receiving blood transfusions, and spend at least several hours a month distributing Watchtower literature to the public and trying to sign people up for "free Bible studies in their home." In my view, Chuck is not saved. He knows a lot more than Kuku, but at the core of what he claims to know are beliefs that reveal that Chuck is trusting in his own works to save him. Chuck knows Jesus' name and knows about Jesus' death, unlike Kuku, but Chuck actually rejects crucial truths about Jesus that Kuku did not even know. That rejection of crucial truths is indicative of a spiritual condition of estrangement from Christ that is qualitatively different from and inferior to Kuku's spiritual condition.
• Andrea is a mentally retarded adult living in the twenty-first century. She is part of a good church and enjoys it very much. She knows that Jesus loves her, that he died on the cross, that he is alive in heaven now, and that one day she will live with Jesus forever. She doesn't really understand the atonement as a doctrine, although in some vague way she recognizes that Jesus died for her. She knows that sometimes she does bad things and that Jesus loves her anyway, and this makes her want to be good for Jesus. In my view, Andrea is saved.
• Cal is a Southern Baptist living in the twenty-first century. He adheres to all the right doctrines, as set forth in the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000. In fact, Cal takes great pride in his doctrinal correctness and denies the salvation of people in other denominations who don't have the right views on such matters as baptism. Cal assumes that because he accepts the correct gospel doctrine, goes to a good church, and espouses the right social values, he is one of the saved. He thanks God that he is not a sinner like those homosexuals and not a heretic like those Mormons. He's better than that. In my view, Cal is not saved. He has confused doctrinal correctness with genuine faith. He may verbally profess belief in salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, but for Cal this is a doctrinal matter only, a question on the final exam that will be administered on the Day of Judgment. He expects to pass that doctrinal exam and so assumes he's saved. He is gravely mistaken.

I'm serious about my hypothetical example of Cal the Southern Baptist. The example is not entirely hypothetical. I know a Southern Baptist pastor who was raised in the church, accepted the doctrine, went to a Baptist college and seminary, became a pastor, and only then trusted in Christ as his Savior! That was his own testimony. Doctrinal correctness is important but it is not what saves a person. However, doctrinal error on the essentials, when that error is a conscious rejection of the truth that has been made known to the person, is symptomatic of a heart that has yet to come to genuine repentance and faith.

[CV75]

Rob Bowman, on 09 June 2011 - 07:47 AM, said:

there is a difference between, say, an Israelite and a Hindu
  
all redeemed people living in one united new heavens and new earth, rather than the LDS concept of three separate heavenly kingdoms and degrees of glory within the celestial kingdom.

If you explained it above, I do not understand why the Hindu is not given an opportunity to know what the Israelite knows sometime after his mortal life and before his judgment, or why God would not thus extend an opportunity for full mercy to him, so that he might then opt to receive it (full mercy translating into the highest degree of reward; partial mercy translating into “degrees of reward.”). I'm thinking of 1 Peter 3 and 4 scriptures about Christ preaching to the dead after their time in this life is over.

Also, (referencing Exod. 33:19; Rom. 9:15, 18), I do not understand how God’s choices do not reflect compliance with His designs for and promises to all humanity (Romans 5: 11-21, where the full blessings of the Atonement are at least accomplished by Christ and extended to “all men.”).

Edited by CV75, 09 June 2011 - 09:11 AM.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 09 June 2011 - 08:09 AM, said:

PacMan,

t does not mean that God is obliged to show mercy to everyone or to save everyone. See my response to nackhadlow for more on this point.

I don't think that is what Pacman was saying. In some ways I think there is a barrier here. I see that you guys might be talking past each other.

What Pacman is saying (I believe)is that because God has claimed not to be a respecter of persons that means that he will not arbitrarily damn some one.  But because God said "If you believe on his son you would have ever lasting life". In that sense those that seek out this belief will be saved. It seems to me that you are saying about God "because he owes us nothing" can choose to damn us even if we have that belief. I don't think that is what you are saying. I just see that seems to be what you are saying because there might be a misunderstanding in Pacman's point.

But you are right God does not owe us anything esp in light of Salvation in terms of a wage. But He does owe in a certain sense because if we do what God asks he is obligated to fulfill his end.

I hope this helps.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 09 June 2011 - 10:05 AM, said:

I don't think that is what Pacman was saying. In some ways I think there is a barrier here. I see that you guys might be talking past each other.

That's entirely possible.

You wrote:

Quote

What Pacman is saying (I believe)is that because God has claimed not to be a respecter of persons that means that he will not arbitrarily damn some one.  But because God said "If you believe on his son you would have ever lasting life". In that sense those that seek out this belief will be saved. It seems to me that you are saying about God "because he owes us nothing" can choose to damn us even if we have that belief. I don't think that is what you are saying. I just see that seems to be what you are saying because there might be a misunderstanding in Pacman's point.

I certainly was not suggesting that God might damn someone who trusts in Christ alone as Savior. God does not renege on his promises. In that sense, of course God can be counted on to do what he has said he will do. But God was not obligated to make the offer to anyone in the first place, and he is not obligated to make sure everyone has the same opportunity to hear the gospel.

You wrote:

Quote

But you are right God does not owe us anything esp in light of Salvation in terms of a wage. But He does owe in a certain sense because if we do what God asks he is obligated to fulfill his end.

I agree with you on that point.

[Pa Pa]

Rob Bowman, on 09 June 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

Mola,


I certainly was not suggesting that God might damn someone who trusts in Christ alone as Savior. God does not renege on his promises. In that sense, of course God can be counted on to do what he has said he will do. But God was not obligated to make the offer to anyone in the first place, and he is not obligated to make sure everyone has the same opportunity to hear the gospel.

If the standard for judgment is the same, I beg to differ; if he wants to maintain his righteous? Otherwise you are back to the same doctrine of pre-destination.

Edited by Pa Pa, 09 June 2011 - 10:46 AM.

[calmoriah]

Rob Bowman, on 09 June 2011 - 08:03 AM, said:

calmoriah,

You asked:



God is responsible for our conception and birth via his providential rule over and involvement in the universe, but this does not mean that he "makes us sinful," as people often misunderstand the doctrine to imply.

Thank you for clarifying.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 09 June 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

Mola,





I agree with you on that point.

Good.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 08 June 2011 - 01:05 PM, said:

nackhadlow,





This is also not exactly my view. Salvation is only possible by Christ, and only actualized through faith in God, but that faith need not include cognition of the specific facts about Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection. Old Testament saints, in my view, were saved without knowing about Christ's future death and resurrection.

To some extent I think I agree with you.
I have a question that you may or may not be able to answer. In these scenarios, I have to pause and give thought to this question. Why do we even need to be aware of Christ if other people can be saved not even knowing who Christ is? Why note all be saved with out no knowledge?  Keep in mind that I am just assuming that everything else you have said is true and am not arguing any other points.

[David T]

Rob, thank you very much for your responses. They are helpful. (Thanks to everyone else for their contributions as well, and for keeping it civil and on topic!).

Based on what you've said, here’s my attempt to correct my initial observations, withregards to your views of the standing state of all mankind, concerning Justice,  not taking into consideration acts of Mercy. Again, please correct if there is something that sounds inaccurate to your way of understanding things:

a) Adam andEve are created innocent. Due to their act of Sin (rebellion), all furtheroffspring are generated in a corrupt physical, moral, and emotional state, witha predisposition to sin.
a 1) All lifethat is conceived directly from descendants of Adam and Eve – including unbornchildren, babies, children, adults, etc – unavoidably have this corruptphysical, moral, and emotional state, with a predisposition to sin.

b) Apredisposition to sin does not mean that one is forced to sin, but indicates that practically,  they will, nevertheless, inevitably sin.

c) To sin, onemust reach an intellectual attainment of “accountability”

c-1) Thus,unborn children, young children, mentally handicapped adults are not “accountable”,and therefore, do not sin.

c-2) All whoare “accountable” will inevitably sin.

d) All who sinin their mortal life deserve some degree of Everlasting Torment.

d-1) All whoare “accountable” will inevitably deserve some degree of Everlasting Torment

Edited by nackhadlow, 09 June 2011 - 01:12 PM.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 09 June 2011 - 07:47 AM, said:

nackhadlow,

  

  I wouldn’t be troubled by that way of putting things. Evangelicals commonly, though not universally, think that there will be “degrees of reward” for the redeemed, but they understand this in the context of all redeemed people living in one united new heavens and new earth, rather than the LDS concept of three separate heavenly kingdoms and degrees of glory within the celestial kingdom.

I wonder, I don't think there is any were in the LDS scriptures that says these 3 kingdoms are 3 separate physical locations (I could be wrong life demands certain things I forget somethings). I was just thinking on this the other day. Some have postulated because of the difference in glory that they would physically have to be in a different location but I am not aware of anything definitively on the matter from scripture.

If there are different rewards in EV thought were there different levels of damnation?

[PacMan]

calmoriah,

Quote

Even if God is not the ultimate source, he would have been aware of the sins to come and done nothing to stop them, similar to a gun store owner who sells a gun and ammo after the individual tells him in detail how he is going on a rampage intending to kill as many people as possible and the only thing he does is to tell the person not to do it though he has the ability not only to stop the man, but to change him or the circumstances in such a way that he never even considered to do such harm in the first place.

You beg two questions: 1) Does knowledge of something happening create liability?  In the law, I can sell you a gun as a gun owner (assuming all other laws are met) and have no liability despite knowing that you’ll use it for an illegal purpose.  2) You assume God knows these things.  I do not dispute that he can, but there is no reason he must.

There is one more notion that I think is obvious, but never stated.  God is the sovereign, meaning his actions are really exempt from his own laws if he chooses them to be.  That's not hypocrisy, if the law says it's not.  Who’s to say that knowing necessarily implicates God?  What rule does this violate?

PacMan

Edited by PacMan, 09 June 2011 - 06:28 PM.

[PacMan]

Rob,

Quote

The biblical principle that God is not a respecter of persons cannot be legitimately pitted against the equally biblical principles that God owes no one anything and that God shows mercy to some and not to absolutely everyone. Your deduction that God's "grace to one binds him to extend the same grace to all" is flatly contrary to the Bible. What God reveals in Scripture takes precedence over our theological deductions. In context, Acts 10:34 (for example) simply means that God does not restrict salvation to Jews. It does not mean that God is obliged to show mercy to everyone or to save everyone. See my response to nackhadlow for more on this point.

Illegitimate?  Because you say so is not a particularly stellar reason to take you at your word.  CFR.  There is no such biblical revelation that suggests anything less.  The only way you can come to such a backward alternative is by begging the question and completely disregarding the clear text and meaning of the most basic of biblical principles: God is equitable, perfect, just, etc.  Those are biblical principles.  Do you disagree?  See Psalms 98:9.  And to extend grace to one but not all is inequitable and quintessentially being a respecter of persons.  I do not understand how common sense nor the bible (if we must assume they diverge) can support anything to the contrary.

Furthermore, Acts is precisely on point: If God extends his mercy to all but the poor indigent locked away in a backwards country with no knowledge or understanding of God by which to obey or otherwise believe/accept God, his damnation is constructively due to God withholding salvation from him.

You need to put a little more meat on your argument, because it is completely untenable as written.  If you’d take a second stab, I’d be much obliged.

Cheers,
PacMan

P.S.  

Regarding your hypothetical of Kuku, I don’t understand how you get around baptism.  Last time I checked, Jesus didn’t qualify John 3:5.  [Talk about supplanting the bible for “theological deductions.”]  Tu quo que.

Moreover, your example using the Jehovah’s Witness is fundamentally Pharisaic.  Last time I checked, the Bible didn’t qualify the “saving doctrines” that one had to get right.  I find that arrogantly presumptuous…particularly if the JW “genuinely” believes those doctrines and is following them to the best of his/her ability.  Again, who are you to say what is “essential?”  Walking 30 steps, 40 step, of 100 steps on the Sabbath?  Whether one practices the tradition of Christmas, or accepts blood-transfusions?  I could make my own of absurdum questions and example, but I think your list is much better.

Edited by PacMan, 09 June 2011 - 06:30 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 09 June 2011 - 11:58 AM, said:

I have a question that you may or may not be able to answer. In these scenarios, I have to pause and give thought to this question. Why do we even need to be aware of Christ if other people can be saved not even knowing who Christ is? Why note all be saved with out no knowledge?  Keep in mind that I am just assuming that everything else you have said is true and am not arguing any other points.

Well, I assume we're excluding from consideration here infants and the mentally incapable who can't commit sins in the first place. Your question, I think, has to do with morally and spiritually accountable people who never hear of Christ. Remember, my position is that while I acknowledge that it is hypothetically possible for such people to respond to the light of general revelation in nature and conscience by appealing to the Creator for mercy, we have no way of knowing if anyone has ever done this, let alone if many people have done it. So while I allow this possibility in theory I don't think we can view it as a basis for a secure hope for the unevangelized. In fact, what we discover as we take the gospel to people groups for the first time is that as a whole they are mired in abject spiritual darkness, idolatry, and typically demonic oppression. As a generalization, then, the unevangelized peoples of the world are lost and desperately in need of the light of the gospel. God chooses to bring people out of darkness into the light of his mercy and truth through the proclamation of the gospel (see Acts 26:18). That is the normal way God works.

As for people in the OT who were saved even before Christ came, while they did not know about Jesus Christ by that name, they knew the true God--the LORD (Jehovah), who would later become incarnate as Jesus Christ. They knew that the LORD had a plan for the redemption of the world (and they knew, after Abraham, that the plan somehow involved Abraham's seed). So they were not saved in total ignorance. They knew God, they knew about God's just standards, and they knew that God offered them mercy.