A Dilemma for Christians

[consiglieri]

Christianity contains within its theology a number of dilemmas.

The one I wish to discuss in this thread is why it was that Jesus came so late?

Christianity teaches that only in and through Jesus Christ can humanity be saved.

And yet, even by the most conservative estimates, Jesus Christ was not born until 4,000 years after the Fall.

The majority of Christendom believes that Jesus Christ and his gospel was not available to those who predated Jesus, a belief which is compounded in difficulty by the concomitant belief that there is no salvation available after death.

This leads to the unhappy conclusion that those who lived before Jesus do not have the possibility of salvation open to them.

Of course, Mormonism avoids this dilemma not only by believing and practicing salvific work for the dead, but also in teaching that the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ was made known from the beginning.

I am interested in learning how non-LDS Christians resolve this dilemma, as I intend to discuss the subject in my gospel doctrine class this Sunday.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jason]

You might add to that that, as far as the OT shows, none of the Old Testament prophets even knew his name. How can Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, and Isaiah be saved without having known Jesus Christ?

[selek]

You might add to that that, as far as the OT shows, none of the Old Testament prophets even knew his name. How can Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, and Isaiah be saved without having known Jesus Christ?

IF (and that's a mighty big "if") I remember correctly, my Baptist teachers attempted to get around this be claiming that the people were under the same laws at the time as we are today. Like us, they could gain remission of thier sins by adherence to the commandments and by making sacrifices to show devotion and appease God's wrath.

The thrust of their argument was that Christ's great personal sacrifice served to replace the animal sacrifice with one penultimate sacrifice, obviating once and for all the ritual slaughtering of animals.

The people under the "Old" Covenant would be judged precisely the same as those under the "New" Covenant- by Christ and according to both his mercy and how well they kept the commandments.

The "fun" part, of course, is that this extension of Christ's grace as defined only extends to the Covenant people.

Those born without "The Law" were simply out of luck. They were damned by poor timing, ignorance, or simple chance- but that's ok, because they were all fallen and evil anyway.

[soren]

Christianity contains within its theology a number of dilemmas.

The one I wish to discuss in this thread is why it was that Jesus came so late?

Christianity teaches that only in and through Jesus Christ can humanity be saved.

And yet, even by the most conservative estimates, Jesus Christ was not born until 4,000 years after the Fall.

The majority of Christendom believes that Jesus Christ and his gospel was not available to those who predated Jesus, a belief which is compounded in difficulty by the concomitant belief that there is no salvation available after death.

This leads to the unhappy conclusion that those who lived before Jesus do not have the possibility of salvation open to them.

Of course, Mormonism avoids this dilemma not only by believing and practicing salvific work for the dead, but also in teaching that the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ was made known from the beginning.

I am interested in learning how non-LDS Christians resolve this dilemma, as I intend to discuss the subject in my gospel doctrine class this Sunday.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Not a big theological problem.

People who lived before Christ but were faithful to God are saved vicariously through the Church per Heb 11:39-40: "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." Christ's descent to the dead also provides a means of salvation for those who lived before. As a Catholic, I can slo add the doctrine of baptism of desire as a means of explaining the salvation of thos who lived before Christ.

Even if this were not the case, there would still not be a problem, becasue no one justly deserves the gospel. If God did not offer salvation to anyone, he could not be accused of injustice; that it why it is marvelously merciful of him to offer salvation to all.

[Sentinus]

Not a big theological problem.

People who lived before Christ but were faithful to God are saved vicariously through the Church per Heb 11:39-40: "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." Christ's descent to the dead also provides a means of salvation for those who lived before. As a Catholic, I can slo add the doctrine of baptism of desire as a means of explaining the salvation of thos who lived before Christ.

Even if this were not the case, there would still not be a problem, becasue no one justly deserves the gospel. If God did not offer salvation to anyone, he could not be accused of injustice; that it why it is marvelously merciful of him to offer salvation to all.

I would add that we as Christians hold out the hope as individuals that mercy will be granted to all, how could we not? Yet it is not for us to decide. What has been said is that we are to warn our neighbor, and to preach Christ to all to ensure they are saved. Just because we don't know for sure how God will judge those that came before specifically does not mean that a perfectly just and Merciful God doesn't have his own plan. We need not worry about the how, or why only the present that we can directly influence. The driving force of Christianity is its sense of urgency to preach, and teach of Christ to those around us. IMO this call is what God uses to hone, and shape each of us as followers of Christ to become humble, and to serve each other.

I see no theological issue here either. It is not my place to put mans idea of fairness on God, for all are unworthy..

Regards,

Sentinus

[consiglieri]

Not a big theological problem.

Thanks for the input, Soren.

I think the Catholics are pretty well covered, especially with their belief in the Kerygma during the Descensus (my apologies if my Latin is lacking).

I am anxious to hear from our non-Catholic, non-LDS Christian friends as to how they resolve this issue.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I see no theological issue here either. It is not my place to put mans idea of fairness on God, for all are unworthy..

Regards,

Sentinus

Thanks for your post, Sentinus.

But are you suggesting that there may, in fact, be a way to salvation other than through the name of Jesus Christ?

I understand where you are coming from when you say that "all are unworthy," but as soon as God steps into the scene halfway through the play and provides the (one and only?) means of salvation in His Son, Jesus Christ, does it not automatically become "unfair" to all those who lived beforehand, and who were deprived of salvation merely because of God's dilatory conduct?

I mean, why didn't God have Jesus be Adam's Son, so as to take care of this rather obvious glitch?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Sentinus]

Thanks for your post, Sentinus.

But are you suggesting that there may, in fact, be a way to salvation other than through the name of Jesus Christ?

I understand where you are coming from when you say that "all are unworthy," but as soon as God steps into the scene halfway through the play and provides the (one and only?) means of salvation in His Son, Jesus Christ, does it not automatically become "unfair" to all those who lived beforehand, and who were deprived of salvation merely because of God's dilatory conduct?

I mean, why didn't God have Jesus be Adam's Son, so as to take care of this rather obvious glitch?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

But are you suggesting that there may, in fact, be a way to salvation other than through the name of Jesus Christ?

No, I am suggesting that we as believers are given no other answer because it is simply not important for us at this time. And as far as I can read there is no need for further light on the issue. We all know Christ will come again, and we should preach and warn of this until that day. As far as I am concerned it is my responsibility to teach TODAY that by no other name can you be saved. I leave the rest to God. He is perfectly Just and Perfectly Merciful, and I am not. We could get into the old Covenant and the new, and with pages upon pages of writing on the issue discuss Jewish traditions, and sacrafice etc. But in the end Christ came, and opened the truths of the new covenant to Jew and Gentile alike, I will be judged according to this covenant only, so I don't worry about the past. Nor do I concern myself with the what ifs or fairness regarding Gods plan. The gospel is "the good news" of Jesus Christ for all who receive him. This is what we are called to proclaim. I hope this helps.

As for glitch, I guess you can see it that way, and I guess looking at the picture that way confirms some LDS doctrine. But as for myself having been LDS, LDS doctrine while it does tie up some loose ends, IMO creates many, many more in its attempts to explain certain things. All religious belief will boil down to faith, it all depends on what you are willing to place faith in. I am willing to place my faith in the Bible as Gods word, and In Christ alone for my salvation. EVERYTHING else is suspect for me.

Regards,

Sentinus

[Uncle Dale]

...

The one I wish to discuss in this thread is why it was that Jesus came so late?

Christianity teaches that only in and through Jesus Christ can humanity be saved.

...

There may be something relevant in the old precept of the "meridian of time."

I am not a gospel dispensationist -- so I am not talking about a temporal series

of establishments and dis-establishments of Christianity.

Rather, I am thinking along the lines of fruition -- that when the time is right,

the necessary events occur.

There was something unique and transcendent in the life, ministry, death and

continued presence of Jesus the son of Mary. No matter how we articulate our

respective Christologies, I believe that the "time was ripe" when he appeared

on earth ---- not to save souls from hell, but to encounter and transform people

in this world, in such a way that their spirituality is uniquely enhanced.

If we only concentrate upon the aspect of vicarious universal atonement, we are

in danger of forgetting whence such atonement originates, and what the final

consequences of atonement really entail.

I'm asking folks to step outside of their usual understandings of who and what

Jesus was/is --- and to try and comprehend a larger, greater view of what our

relationship with Heavenly Father was, is, and ever shall be.

Those who have ears to hear might benefit by such meditations.

Uncle Dale

ps -- There is no such thing as "time;" let alone a "meridian of time."

.

[saemo]

Interesting Uncle Dale.

That little bit of the OP caught my attention.

The Catholic view: God exists outside of time, as God is the Creator of all things. When God became Incarnate, it was a point in time for us humans where God entered not only the world, but time as well.

Why? Because God chose to, that's why. Just the same as no one knows the time of Jesus' return but the Father.

[consiglieri]

Why? Because God chose to, that's why. Just the same as no one knows the time of Jesus' return but the Father.

But if it was solely up to God, why not just come into the world right after Adam?

That way, everybody born on this earth could have just followed the gospel plan to salvation through the name of Jesus.

The fact that Jesus wasn't born until late in the game makes it look like God has two different plans of salvation; one for those before Jesus, and another for those after Jesus.

Granted God can do what he wants, doesn't this pose a problem for those who believe that salvation can come only in and through faith in Jesus?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Uncle Dale]

Interesting Uncle Dale.

That little bit of the OP caught my attention.

The Catholic view: God exists outside of time, as God is the Creator of all things. When God became Incarnate, it was a point in time for us humans where God entered not only the world, but time as well.

Why? Because God chose to, that's why. Just the same as no one knows the time of Jesus' return but the Father.

Close to what I was trying to say --- not that God "exists" outside of time -- but that God

transcends both time and existence.

We experience God within time, generally -- though some Saints experience mystical union

in such a way that they do not speak of that experience in temporal terms.

But our experiences in no way condition God. Because we experience God as a person;

that does not mean that God is limited to the condition of personhood.

But beyond all of that -- the "atonement" is eternal -- without beginning or end. We

experience it as the human race, in Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection. But, again,

our experience places no conditions upon God.

Each one of us experiences redemption in our own lives -- at a particular time.

But there is a greater reality -- the adding together of ALL of those individual cases of

regeneration. That sum total does NOT occur at any particular moment im time.

Jesus came when he did, simply because he did. Had he come in the days of Isaiah,

the situation would have been unripe. Had he come in the days of Thomas Aquinas,

the situation would have been over ripe.

Our theorizing as to WHY he came when he did is only useful, insofar as it leads us to

the fact that redemption is timeless -- and that our experience is what occurs in time.

UD

ps-- "doesn't this pose a problem for those who believe that salvation can come only in and

through faith in Jesus?"

Only because such people seek to place limitations upon the will and power of God. They are

the ones who say that a camel cannot pass through the eye of a needle. Jesus is a nexus --

a crossing point of ourselves and the Divine. In that sense, a cross is an apt symbol for him;

but not because he died upon one. We all come to Jesus at some point -- because he is that

eternal, necessary crossroads, we all must come to -- in life, or perhaps beyond life.

[saemo]

Our theorizing as to WHY he came when he did is only useful, insofar as it leads us yo

the fact that redemption is timeless -- and that our experience is what occurs in time.

I agree. It is in fact how we understand the Sacrifice at every Mass.

[consiglieri]

Our theorizing as to WHY he came when he did is only useful, insofar as it leads us yo

the fact that redemption is timeless -- and that our experience is what occurs in time.

I appreciate your insightful posts, as always, Uncle Dale.

But could it not be argued that saying "redemption is timeless" comes more easily to those of us on this side of the Jesus time continuum, who are not consigned to hell for not believing in a Jesus who hadn't gotten around to being born yet?

God doubtless transcends time, and lots of other things, my intelligence and imagination included.

But we as mortals do not transcend time, and it is the thorny situation of those mortals born before Jesus that concerns me.

Of course, if a given soteriology has a way of resolving this problem, so much the better.

Even saying, as saemo does, that he just doesn't know, but that he trusts in God for a merciful outcome, is a step in the right direction, I think. (Nephi said as much in the Book of Mormon, as I recall.)

The folks I continue to wait to hear from are those Christians who believe that faith in Jesus during this mortal probation is essential to salvation.

These are the folks I think may have difficulty answering the question of why Jesus came so late.

But we shall see, should any such decide to participate.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Sevenbak]

You might add to that that, as far as the OT shows, none of the Old Testament prophets even knew his name. How can Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, and Isaiah be saved without having known Jesus Christ?

I would tend to disagree here. At least from our understanding and acceptance of what the BOM says on the matter...

Jacob 7:11 ...none of the prophets have written, nor prophesied, save they have spoken concerning this Christ.

[consiglieri]

I would tend to disagree here. At least from our understanding and acceptance of what the BOM says on the matter...

Jacob 7:11 ...none of the prophets have written, nor prophesied, save they have spoken concerning this Christ.

Although I don't know what was in Jacob's mind when he wrote this, I tend to view such statements as prophetic license.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Uncle Dale]

...

The folks I continue to wait to hear from are those Christians who believe that faith in Jesus during this mortal probation is essential to salvation.

...

This is one of the points of theology where you Mormons are in advance of the crowd.

You cannot expect the crowd to catch up to you -- (only a few of its members).

Many are called, but few are chosen.

And, of course, we RLDS are in advance of even the precept of salvation after death;

but I will not evangelize here.

UD

[Sevenbak]

Although I don't know what was in Jacob's mind when he wrote this, I tend to view such statements as prophetic license.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think what Jacob is saying that rather than the "name" of Christ, all have spoken "of" the Christ. That is after all what the Law of Moses pointed to, and the covenants before Moses.

Nephi was a prophet and spoke of the Messiah before the Angel told him His name.

JMHO

[consiglieri]

And, of course, we RLDS are in advance of even the precept of salvation after death;

but I will not evangelize here.

Not even if you are requested to do so by the President of the SSCE?

Pretty please?

[Uncle Dale]

Not even if you are requested to do so by the President of the SSCE?

Pretty please?

This gets into the precept of the temporality of ordinances as well as the priesthood of all

believers. Such an exposition would step upon far too many tender LDS toes, I fear.

But -- to be brief --

We here in this life experience the shadows of Platonic ideals -- not the essence of those ideals;

at least not on a regular basis.

We go about saying things, such as -- "You need to be baptized by proper authority!" because

we function within a limited reality and think it to be the ultimate reality.

We carefully insure that ordinances are performed by those having proper authority -- because

we cannot grasp the full meaning of "authority."

It is a bit difficult to teach cosmology in a kindergarten class.

Uncle "though out of the mouths of babes may come great wisdom" Dale

.

[cksalmon]

The folks I continue to wait to hear from are those Christians who believe that faith in Jesus during this mortal probation is essential to salvation.

These are the folks I think may have difficulty answering the question of why Jesus came so late.

But we shall see, should any such decide to participate.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hey Consig--

At the risk of making things too easy on myself, I can only imagine that you know exactly how I (as a thoroughgoing theological determinist) would answer your query.

It's a good question.

I'm convinced that the salvation of anyone at any time (past or future) is fully dependent upon the atoning work of Christ. I haven't fully thought out my position on the individual appropriation of that redemptive act (chronologically) prior to the the atonement. I've certainly thought about it. A lot. But, I'm not ready to articulate a firm position. To quote Policeman MacCruiskeen, "It is one of the most compressed and intricate pancakes I have ever known."

As an aside, and I suspect you'll disagree, but you might be able to squint just so and get my meaning here: one of the things that raises my suspicions about Mormonism is its tendency to "solve" theological "problems."

***

The logical argument to double predestination strikes me as unassailable. Whether or not the biblical argument to same is as strong is another matter entirely.

In other words, I suppose I haven't yet decided whether or not I should consider your query reflective of an actual problem for my theological convictions.

Best.

cks

[jadams_4242]

But if it was solely up to God, why not just come into the world right after Adam?

That way, everybody born on this earth could have just followed the gospel plan to salvation through the name of Jesus.

The fact that Jesus wasn't born until late in the game makes it look like God has two different plans of salvation; one for those before Jesus, and another for those after Jesus.

Granted God can do what he wants, doesn't this pose a problem for those who believe that salvation can come only in and through faith in Jesus?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Lets not ferget that God and Jesus are the same being according to those whom you speak of.

[coolrok7]

Christianity contains within its theology a number of dilemmas.

The one I wish to discuss in this thread is why it was that Jesus came so late?

Christianity teaches that only in and through Jesus Christ can humanity be saved.

And yet, even by the most conservative estimates, Jesus Christ was not born until 4,000 years after the Fall.

The majority of Christendom believes that Jesus Christ and his gospel was not available to those who predated Jesus, a belief which is compounded in difficulty by the concomitant belief that there is no salvation available after death.

This leads to the unhappy conclusion that those who lived before Jesus do not have the possibility of salvation open to them.

Of course, Mormonism avoids this dilemma not only by believing and practicing salvific work for the dead, but also in teaching that the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ was made known from the beginning.

I am interested in learning how non-LDS Christians resolve this dilemma, as I intend to discuss the subject in my gospel doctrine class this Sunday.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

No dilemma here:

Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. (Galatians 4:1-5)â?

Romans 2 explains how those before that didn't hear about Jesus wil be judged justly by Jesus based on what they knew and how they responded to what they knew just like those who have heard about Jesus. Romans 1 tells of those who:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, â??The just shall live by faith.â? For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manâ??and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:16-23)

[3DOP]

Thanks for the input, Soren.

I think the Catholics are pretty well covered, especially with their belief in the Kerygma during the Descensus (my apologies if my Latin is lacking).

I am anxious to hear from our non-Catholic, non-LDS Christian friends as to how they resolve this issue.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I am Catholic too now, but when I was Protestant we had a saying regarding this: In the Old Testament, souls were saved by looking forward to the Cross, in the New Testament we are saved by looking backward to the Cross. The Atonement was not limited by its time in history but covers all. Whether you find this a satisfactory position or not, I am speaking of fundamental Baptists, that do not draw back from literal interpretations of Hell. We did not believe that everyone was damned before Christ. We knew that could not be right. If we did not know the particulars, we were satisfied that more than likely, people did not require the explicit knowledge of God that was incumbent upon those who come after the Gospel. Those were the times God "winked at" (Acts: something or other). Gotta go...hope that helps you teach a better class...I appreciate your sincere desire to present others positions accurately. Very commendable.

Blessings to you,

3DOP

[No Touch]

You might add to that that, as far as the OT shows, none of the Old Testament prophets even knew his name. How can Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, and Isaiah be saved without having known Jesus Christ?

The opposite is true, and it's actually one of Eusebius's arguments for Christianity in his Church History (Eusebius was a contemporary of Constantine BTW). At least from the time of Moses, the name of Jesus was wel known because Moses gave that name to Joshua. If I'm not being clear, let me say it more directly - in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, the names Jesus and Joshua are the same name. Joshua is a more direct anglofication of the Hebrew name I suppose, but if you look at a Bible written in Greek, they both have the same name, . And in Latin, they are both IESVS.

The situation with the word Christ is no different. Christ simply being the Greek word for annointed, it should be understood as the same word used from the time of Moses on forward (at least) when referring to all the priests and such as being annointed.

Here's a link if you want to read Eusebius's chapter on this subject.