God Possibly May Not Have Given Billions An Opportunity To Be Saved

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You asked:

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:

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:

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]

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 June 9, 2011 by CV75

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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:

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:

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:

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.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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 June 9, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Calm]

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]

Mola,

I agree with you on that point.

Good.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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 June 9, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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,

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 June 10, 2011 by PacMan

[PacMan]

Rob,

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 June 10, 2011 by PacMan

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

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.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

I think you've got it.

P.S. Your posts are having some typographical difficulties keeping words separate. Thatcanbekindofdistracting!

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

[David T]

P.S. Your posts are having some typographical difficulties keeping words separate. Thatcanbekindofdistracting!

Sorry. I've been composing them in Word, and then pasting them here. Apparently, it runs words together when this is done. I'll try and be more diligent in reformatting.

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

You wrote:

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.

Um, I already gave biblical support for my statements. For example, I wrote that "God is merciful toward those to whom he chooses to be merciful (Exod. 33:19; Rom. 9:15, 18)." If God chooses to be merciful to some and not others, then your position is false. So, I will turn your CFR back on you and ask for a biblical reference which teaches (properly read in context) that God shows mercy to every human being.

You wrote:

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.

Yes, God is perfectly just and equitable in administering judgment. And in order to be merciful to those whom he chooses to save, God sent his Son to die on the cross to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. This allows God to be just and at the same time to justify those who are sinners but who trust in Jesus Christ as their Substitute (Rom. 3:21-26).

You wrote:

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.

Since we're being blunt, your reasoning is just that, reasoning; it is not based on the Bible as a whole but is imposed on a few verses selectively cited out of context and pitted against the plain teaching of many passages in the Bible that God will damn some and save others. If you're going to be consistent, your position requires you to embrace universalism, according to which everyone will be saved. That isn't even LDS doctrine.

You wrote:

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.

Appeal to pity alert!

Evidently, you do not think this "poor indigent locked away in a backwards country" deserves condemnation. Is that right? You need to make up your mind about this. If he deserves condemnation, then God is not unfair to give it to him. If he does not deserve condemnation, then "salvation" is not mercy but simply what he deserves.

You wrote:

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.

Last time I checked, Jesus didn't actually mention baptism in John 3:5. And while we're talking about lack of qualifications in the text, even assuming that the "water" in John 3:5 denotes baptism, Jesus also didn't tell Nicodemus that if he didn't get baptized no worries because one of his descendants could get baptized on his behalf.

You wrote:

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.

Huh?

For a reductio ad absurdum to work, it has to be based on a correct understanding of the starting point. You're a country mile off. Read my comments about Andrea and Cal and try again.

[David T]

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

I think you've got it.

Rob, is there a biblical explanation you are aware of which explains (and perhaps comforts and makes sense to you) why any single instance of sin or series of sins committed in this short earth life justly deserves some degree of everlasting torment that will not ever be reprieved? One that perhaps goes beyond "Because God decreed it to be Just"?

Edited June 10, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You asked:

Rob, is there a biblical explanation you are aware of which explains (and perhaps comforts and makes sense to you) why any single instance of sin or series of sins committed in this short earth life justly deserves some degree of everlasting torment that will not ever be reprieved? One that perhaps goes beyond "Because God decreed it to be Just"?

I'd like to ask you to make this a bit more of a dialogue and offer something about your own beliefs, rather than have this be an investigation into Rob Bowman's beliefs only. Is it your position that no one is going to suffer eternal punishment? If you agree that some beings will suffer eternal punishment, what will be the basis for that judgment, in your opinion? Let's find out how far apart we are before going further.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Sorry. I've been composing them in Word, and then pasting them here. Apparently, it runs words together when this is done. I'll try and be more diligent in reformatting.

Misspelling words is my turf; Back off!

[mfbukowski]

If the God of the Bible is not compassionate, and billions will suffer everlasting torment because they have followed their own inbred tendency to sin, it again raises the question - to me at least- of how one knows the Bible is true, if indeed that is what the Bible teaches.

To me this is contrary to reason for a God who is perfectly compassionate to create such a situation; if the Biblical God is contrary to reason, why should we believe any of the Bible at all?

It is always this one question which to me, has never been answered. How can we know that the Bible, which supposedly, according to Mr. Bowman, teaches such doctrine, is true- when it is contrary to reasonable standards of justice?

In a court of law, we recognize that those who "cannot do otherwise" (in this case, sin) are treated differently from those who are fully accountable.

I suppose that is the question then: how can one be "accountable" for sin if it is part of their nature?

Those for whom murder is "part of their nature" (in modern English, I suppose that would include those whom we call "criminally insane") are judged "not guilty by reason of insanity" because of what we might term their "inherent sinful nature" using Biblical language.

So if sin is part of our nature, then how can we be condemned justly to eternal punishment for doing what comes naturally?

Edited June 10, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

If the God of the Bible is not compassionate, and billions will suffer everlasting torment because they have followed their own inbred tendency to sin, it again raises the question - to me at least- of how one knows the Bible is true, if indeed that is what the Bible teaches.

To me this is contrary to reason for a God who is perfectly compassionate to create such a situation; if the Biblical God is contrary to reason, why should we believe any of the Bible at all?

It is always this one question which to me, has never been answered. How can we know that the Bible, which supposedly, according to Mr. Bowman, teaches such doctrine, is true- when it is contrary to reasonable standards of justice?

If you require the Bible to agree with your sense of justice and reason in order to accept it, then you are making yourself the authority. God himself could appear to you, First-Vision style, and tell you that many people will suffer eternal punishment, and you would still (to be consistent with what you have said) reject it.

Based on past experience with you, I'm afraid that nothing I say will convince you that the Bible is true, or even that I have answered your question. And you clearly do not believe the Bible is true. If you did, you would simply dispute my understanding of what the Bible says, instead of questioning how one knows the Bible is true.

I can tell you that your objections are based on a distortion of what I have said. Thus, you wrote:

In a court of law, we recognize that those who "cannot do otherwise" (in this case, sin) are treated differently from those who are fully accountable.

I suppose that is the question then: how can one be "accountable" for sin if it is part of their nature?

Those for whom murder is "part of their nature" (in modern English, I suppose that would include those whom we call "criminally insane") are judged "not guilty by reason of insanity" because of what we might term their "inherent sinful nature" using Biblical language.

So if sin is part of our nature, then how can we be condemned justly to eternal punishment for doing what comes naturally?

I was very clear that human beings are responsible and accountable for their actions. Precisely because I knew that Mormons would interpret the expression "sinful nature" to imply that people cannot be accountable for doing what is their very nature, I did not use such language. In the sense you mean it, sin is not "part of our nature." It is a disorder that adversely corrupts human nature. Human nature in and of itself is good, created by God. However, human nature is corrupt because of the fall.

If there is nothing wrong with us, as your line of critique presupposes, you have an even more difficult question to answer. If we're not morally or spiritually corrupt and inclined to sin, how is it that billions of people have lived and died and not one, other than Jesus Christ, managed to live to responsible adulthood without ever sinning? You would think that the odds would be in favor of at least a few million people managing to avoid committing any sins.

[David T]

nackhadlow,

You asked:

I'd like to ask you to make this a bit more of a dialogue and offer something about your own beliefs, rather than have this be an investigation into Rob Bowman's beliefs only. Is it your position that no one is going to suffer eternal punishment? If you agree that some beings will suffer eternal punishment, what will be the basis for that judgment, in your opinion? Let's find out how far apart we are before going further.

Gotcha. I will present my beliefs here, but I don't desire this thread to turn into a 'what do Mormons really and officially teach and believe', or even a compare and contrast thread. In fact, I don't desire this to be a debate thread, but more of a prologue or prelude to further discussion. Because of your unique interactions, I thought it would be beneficial to have your beliefs and explanations (and presuppositions) clearly presented in in your own words - and explained - for reference, without getting bogged down by ad hominem, and to help dissuade needless repetition, and further strawmen attacks. If that makes any sense. I kind of like the idea of this being an interview with you, where insults are not tolerated, and removed when recognized. I do think it has been helpful, and has helped cleared up some misconceptions as to what you actually believe, and what your assumptions are. I think some ideas raised here can serve as great jumping off points for other threads.

I do feel that Evangelical views are often torn down before they're properly understood and explained, which makes a great deal of the so-called 'dialogue' that occurs here meaningless, and unproductive.

However, Rob, I understand if you are uncomfortable with the focus, and do not want to continue to participate. If so, let me know, and I will close the thread.

Edited June 10, 2011 by nackhadlow

[mfbukowski]

I apologize if my response is not "feely-touchy" and politically correct enough for this thread, but I feel I must defend myself.

I will be as "nice-nice" as I can muster in the face of misrepresentation of what I believe.

If you require the Bible to agree with your sense of justice and reason in order to accept it, then you are making yourself the authority. God himself could appear to you, First-Vision style, and tell you that many people will suffer eternal punishment, and you would still (to be consistent with what you have said) reject it.

I beg to differ. You know nothing about what I would or would not accept from spiritual experiences I have had. In fact, my entire testimony is based on spiritual experiences- and I would certainly not share them with you.

Based on past experience with you, I'm afraid that nothing I say will convince you that the Bible is true, or even that I have answered your question. And you clearly do not believe the Bible is true. If you did, you would simply dispute my understanding of what the Bible says, instead of questioning how one knows the Bible is true.

I most certainly affirm that the "Bible is true" based on my own spiritual experiences. It is my feeling that you have refused to engage me on how one is to know it is true- but you repeatedly say that you feel you have engaged me on it. The record will show which is correct should anyone care to research it.

I can tell you that your objections are based on a distortion of what I have said. Thus, you wrote:

If I have distorted what you said, I genuinely apologize. I think my objection stands; if you feel you would like to re-explain it in other terms, I would like to hear what you have to say.

I was very clear that human beings are responsible and accountable for their actions. Precisely because I knew that Mormons would interpret the expression "sinful nature" to imply that people cannot be accountable for doing what is their very nature, I did not use such language. In the sense you mean it, sin is not "part of our nature." It is a disorder that adversely corrupts human nature. Human nature in and of itself is good, created by God. However, human nature is corrupt because of the fall.

I fail to comprehend how one can refer to a "disorder" as afflicting ALL of mankind; either it is "normal" or "not normal", natural or not natural. "Disorder" is something OTHER than what is normal- a disorder afflicting everyone is not a disorder at all. I fail to see how human nature can be both good and corrupt at the same time. Please explain.

If there is nothing wrong with us, as your line of critique presupposes, you have an even more difficult question to answer. If we're not morally or spiritually corrupt and inclined to sin, how is it that billions of people have lived and died and not one, other than Jesus Christ, managed to live to responsible adulthood without ever sinning? You would think that the odds would be in favor of at least a few million people managing to avoid committing any sins.

I never said we were not inclined to sin; my theology explains that clearly and gives us all a chance at redemption, my assertion is that yours does not give us all a chance at redemption and I believe you have acknowledged as much, and in fact says that "God may not have given billions an opportunity to be saved" as per the OP

Of course I could be mistaken about all this.