The fate of those never had a chance.

[LifeOnaPlate]

LifeonaPlate,

You wrote:

I read it. The epistemological question actually has a complicated answer. Is faith in Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross necessary for salvation? That is the question of "epistemological necessity." The answer cannot be a simple Yes or No, because there are clearly categories of people to whom it does not apply. One such category would be Old Testament believers in God. They did not know about Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross, but they were still saved, through their faith in the mercy of God as it had been revealed to them.

My point was simply to address one small point, but an important one, because it is a key premise in most criticism of traditional Christian teaching about salvation. The usual criticism is that it would be unfair of God to condemn ANYONE who had never heard the gospel because it is unfair to condemn someone for failing to believe something he never heard. The stated premise of this argument is a valid principle -- that it would be unfair to condemn someone for failing to believe something he had not heard. However, the hidden premise of the argument is that in traditional Christian theology God condemns people for failing to believe in Jesus. That is a misunderstanding. God condemns people for their sins, for doing things they know are wrong or failing to do things they know are right. Don't you agree that this is a reasonable rebuttal to the argument?

If God condemns them for their sins without offering an alternative or a way out, when he is presumably all-powerful and all-loving (and who created them ex nihilo, thus is responsible for their sinful condition in the first place), then no, I don't find it a reasonable rebuttal.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

Nice to interact with you. It's been a while.

You wrote:

If I understand you correctly, this doesn't work for me at all.

Imagine a hundred people floating in rough seas after a shipwreck. The captain of a nearby ship has a hundred life preservers that he could use to save all of them, but he chooses to save only fifteen, and he sends out life preservers to the chosen fifteen but not to the others. In his defense at a subsequent trial, a crewman says "Nobody died for not accepting a life preserver that he or she never had a chance to accept. Everyone who died did so because he or she drowned. It would be unjust if these people were said to have drowned because they didn't get a life preserver. That wasn't the case. They drowned. Those who were saved were saved by the grace and kindness of Captain Ahab, through the use of the life preserver that he furnished to each of them, but those who were not saved were lost because they drowned at sea, not because they failed to receive a life preserver that wasn't offered to them." I can't imagine that such a defense would deliver Captain Ahab from the judgment of the court.

Your analogy suffers terribly from an obvious key disanalogy: the 85 people who drown in your scenario do not deserve to drown, but all sinners deserve to "drown" in the death that is the just consequence of their sins. Captain Ahab is morally obligated to save all he can because the shipwrecked people generally speaking don't deserve to drown. God is not morally obligated to save anyone from the just punishment of their own sins.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Dan,

Nice to interact with you. It's been a while.

You wrote:

Your analogy suffers terribly from an obvious key disanalogy: the 85 people who drown in your scenario do not deserve to drown, but all sinners deserve to "drown" in the death that is the just consequence of their sins. Captain Ahab is morally obligated to save all he can because the shipwrecked people generally speaking don't deserve to drown. God is not morally obligated to save anyone from the just punishment of their own sins.

Suppose the passengers were convicted murderers, sentenced to die the next day by drowning...

[The next question would be, why aren't you lobbying to change such a horrible capital punishment system ]

[Rob Bowman]

LifeonaPlate,

You wrote:

If God condemns them for their sins without offering an alternative or a way out, when he is presumably all-powerful and all-loving (and who created them ex nihilo, thus is responsible for their sinful condition in the first place), then no, I don't find it a reasonable rebuttal.

The issue of creation ex nihilo is irrelevant in this context. No human beings were created ex nihilo; the first human was created from the dust of the ground and the breath of life, the second from the body of the first, and all subsequent humans are procreated by their human parents (with Jesus having only one human parent by divine miracle).

Your position is apparently that it would be unjust of God not to offer every sinner an opportunity to be saved. I do not find this position in the Bible, or any basis for it in the Bible. To the contrary, I find that the Bible teaches that God has the right to condemn all sinners and to show mercy to those whom he chooses (e.g., Romans 9:14-18).

[sansfoy]

Your analogy suffers terribly from an obvious key disanalogy: the 85 people who drown in your scenario do not deserve to drown, but all sinners deserve to "drown" in the death that is the just consequence of their sins.

And this is why I believe that evangelicals are offering a magical cure to a non-existent ailment. What sin is so grievous that it merits eternal punishment?

Captain Ahab is morally obligated to save all he can because the shipwrecked people generally speaking don't deserve to drown. God is not morally obligated to save anyone from the just punishment of their own sins.

Dr. Peterson's analogy holds in your example. Supposing that Captain Ahab told people not to jump in the water, that the ship hadn't sustained damage when it struck the reef and wasn't going down. The people disregarded Ahab and his expertise and hurled themselves overboard anyway. Wouldn't Ahab still be obligated to throw them life jackets?

[Rob Bowman]

sansfoy,

I approach this subject from the standpoint of the New Testament, which clearly does teach that sin merits eternal punishment (e.g., Matt. 25:41, 46; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 20:10-15). Thus, your problem seems to be with Jesus and the writers of the NT, not with me.

[sansfoy]

sansfoy,

I approach this subject from the standpoint of the New Testament, which clearly does teach that sin merits eternal punishment (e.g., Matt. 25:41, 46; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 20:10-15). Thus, your problem seems to be with Jesus and the writers of the NT, not with me.

Of course there are dozens of people on this board alone who do not believe that Jesus and the writers of the NT said any such thing.

First Corinthians 15:22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Luke 2:10: And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

John 12:32: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Colossians 1: 16 and 20: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

And for doubters like me:

John 12:47: And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world

[SilverKnight]

God is not morally obligated to save anyone from the just punishment of their own sins.

This is an utterly repulsive idea - and truly abhorrent to anyone without a lifetime of sectarian conditioning necessary to swallow it.

This idea that every last human being is somehow deserving of appalling torment for simply being born, is not the design of any God, but the raving of lunatics.

[Daniel Peterson]

Good to see you again, Rob.

I have to say, though, that I'm trying (though, obviously, without much success in recent days) to wean myself from this board, and that I really don't want to get back into any lengthy discussions of anything at all on line. Too much to do. Too many lost hours and days.

Your analogy suffers terribly from an obvious key disanalogy: the 85 people who drown in your scenario do not deserve to drown, but all sinners deserve to "drown" in the death that is the just consequence of their sins. Captain Ahab is morally obligated to save all he can because the shipwrecked people generally speaking don't deserve to drown. God is not morally obligated to save anyone from the just punishment of their own sins.

Sorry. This just doesn't work for me. God saves fifteen sinners who "deserve to drown" but, though he could do so without breaking a sweat, doesn't save the other eighty-five who, no less than the Lucky Fifteen, "deserve to drown"? That makes him arbitrary, not worship-worthy. (Although I can certainly see bending the knee to him out of sheer terror at his omnipotent power.) I find the notion of a God who is less benevolent than I am somewhat blasphemous, to be perfectly candid.

And I think the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is very relevant here. The soul of each lucky Presbyterian and of each doomed-to-damnation Chinese peasant arises, at the very least, with the sovereign and free concurrence of God out of (in the typical view) non-being. And God foreknows that hundreds of millions of Chinese are going to be tortured forever and ever and ever, even before their souls originate. Why doesn't he simply block their coming into existence? Why didn't he create only those destined for salvation? Why doesn't the earth belong entirely to Scottish and Dutch Calvinists? Couldn't he simply snuff the unredeemed painlessly out of existence at death? But no. He tortures them forever and ever and ever and ever. (Any parent who spanked a child for years for even a fairly serious offense would be deemed either criminal or criminally insane.)

I remember a remark that the Protestant "openness" theologian John Sanders (whom I admire very much, on many levels) made to me over dinner once, back in roughly 2003: He said that he would feel a lot better about Calvinist theologians if he had ever met one who didn't consider himself one of the Elect.

[Rob Bowman]

SilverKnight,

You wrote:

This is an utterly repulsive idea - and truly abhorrent to anyone without a lifetime of sectarian conditioning necessary to swallow it.

This idea that every last human being is somehow deserving of appalling torment for simply being born, is not the design of any God, but the raving of lunatics.

Who ever said that anyone deserves torment "for simply being born"? I didn't, and I don't think any such thing.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

Rather than argue analogies into the ground, I will simply say that I approach this subject from the perspective that we must derive our understanding of all doctrinal issues, including this one, from the Bible, and the Bible, especially in the New Testament, is awfully clear that many people are indeed going to be damned for eternity. By your reasoning, this should happen to no one, or nearly no one -- but such a claim is simply irreconcilable with the New Testament.

Feel free to let this drop if that's best for you. I understand about lost hours.

Good to see you again, Rob.

I have to say, though, that I'm trying (though, obviously, without much success in recent days) to wean myself from this board, and that I really don't want to get back into any lengthy discussions of anything at all on line. Too much to do. Too many lost hours and days.

Sorry. This just doesn't work for me. God saves fifteen sinners who "deserve to drown" but, though he could do so without breaking a sweat, doesn't save the other eighty-five who, no less than the Lucky Fifteen, "deserve to drown"? That makes him arbitrary, not worship-worthy. (Although I can certainly see bending the knee to him out of sheer terror at his omnipotent power.) I find the notion of a God who is less benevolent than I am somewhat blasphemous, to be perfectly candid.

And I think the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is very relevant here. The soul of each lucky Presbyterian and of each doomed-to-damnation Chinese peasant arises, at the very least, with the sovereign and free concurrence of God out of (in the typical view) non-being. And God foreknows that hundreds of millions of Chinese are going to be tortured forever and ever and ever, even before their souls originate. Why doesn't he simply block their coming into existence? Why didn't he create only those destined for salvation? Why doesn't the earth belong entirely to Scottish and Dutch Calvinists? Couldn't he simply snuff the unredeemed painlessly out of existence at death? But no. He tortures them forever and ever and ever and ever. (Any parent who spanked a child for years for even a fairly serious offense would be deemed either criminal or criminally insane.)

I remember a remark that the Protestant "openness" theologian John Sanders (whom I admire very much, on many levels) made to me over dinner once, back in roughly 2003: He said that he would feel a lot better about Calvinist theologians if he had ever met one who didn't consider himself one of the Elect.

[Vance]

Who ever said that anyone deserves torment "for simply being born"? I didn't, and I don't think any such thing.

Well, let's see.

A Chinese couple have a baby, it dies shortly after birth, but before it committed a sin or accept Christ. Does it go to hell as well?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Dan,

Rather than argue analogies into the ground, I will simply say that I approach this subject from the perspective that we must derive our understanding of all doctrinal issues, including this one, from the Bible, and the Bible, especially in the New Testament, is awfully clear that many people are indeed going to be damned for eternity. By your reasoning, this should happen to no one, or nearly no one -- but such a claim is simply irreconcilable with the New Testament.

Feel free to let this drop if that's best for you. I understand about lost hours.

The question is not one of "how many people will be damned" but upon what reason will they be damned.

Can a person be damned in ignorance? If not when are they going to learn about Jesus and be saved? The scriptures are clear that you must accept him.

[Rob Bowman]

No. Children who die in the womb or in infancy have not committed any sin because they are not able to do anything good or bad (Romans 9:11). Since hell is only for sinners, that Chinese baby will not go there.

Well, let's see.

A Chinese couple have a baby, it dies shortly after birth, but before it committed a sin or accept Christ. Does it go to hell as well?

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

A person is damned for what he knows, not for what he doesn't know. The sinner is damned for doing what he knows is wrong and failing to do what he knows is right.

The question is not one of "how many people will be damned" but upon what reason will they be damned.

Can a person be damned in ignorance? If not when are they going to learn about Jesus and be saved? The scriptures are clear that you must accept him.

[SilverKnight]

SilverKnight,

You wrote:

Who ever said that anyone deserves torment "for simply being born"? I didn't, and I don't think any such thing.

Okay, fair enough.

So within how many minutes of being born does a baby commit its first sin and become a depraved sinner?

Calvinism contends that damnation is the default condition of humans, right?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

A person is damned for what he knows, not for what he doesn't know. The sinner is damned for doing what he knows is wrong and failing to do what he knows is right.

I agree, but scripture is again clear that we must accept Jesus to be saved. When is that going to happen for the dude living in rural China in 400 BC?

[LifeOnaPlate]

The issue of creation ex nihilo is irrelevant in this context. No human beings were created ex nihilo; the first human was created from the dust of the ground and the breath of life, the second from the body of the first, and all subsequent humans are procreated by their human parents (with Jesus having only one human parent by divine miracle).

Thanks for the speedy response, Rob. I think creatio ex nihilo is entirely relevant, myself. But I didn't know you were a traducianist. I think the same problem applies. God set up the scheme himself, so without providing for all of those produced by the scheme (since that is your particular view of it) I still find it an unreasonable explanation. But your mistake might be that you are appealing to reason. I don't think that is going to convince people who intuit justice and mercy differently than you might.

Your position is apparently that it would be unjust of God not to offer every sinner an opportunity to be saved. I do not find this position in the Bible, or any basis for it in the Bible.

My position is more concerned about the love and mercy factor than the justice factor. As I noted before, though (in that long post you said you read already ), John Sanders described God as possessing a "universal salvific will," citing 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (from the Bible): "God...desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Other proof-texts I can think of include Titus 2:11, Ezekiel 18:23, and 2 Peter 3:9. Perhaps the most famous and eloquent is John 3:16-17:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

According to these verses, the Father sent the Son to save the world, not condemn the sinners who justly deserve it, supposing I grant your point about everyone deserving it.

To the contrary, I find that the Bible teaches that God has the right to condemn all sinners and to show mercy to those whom he chooses (e.g., Romans 9:14-18).

Doesn't saying God has "rights" contradict the sovereignty of God in a Calvinist view? It implies God is hemmed in by certain strictures. (I can't recall if you're Calvinist though. You spend more time condemning my beliefs than explaining yours, so it's tough to tell.)

[Rob Bowman]

SilverKnight,

Babies don't commit sin. I don't know how long a child lives before he becomes culpable as a sinner, and in fact this varies from one human to the next. So I don't presume to make such judgments. But at some point every human being who is not mentally retarded will, if he or she lives long enough, reach a point of culpability as a sinner.

Okay, fair enough.

So within how many minutes of being born does a baby commit its first sin and become a depraved sinner?

Calvinism contends that damnation is the default condition of humans, right?

[Rob Bowman]

LifeonaPlate,

You wrote:

But your mistake might be that you are appealing to reason. I don't think that is going to convince people who intuit justice and mercy differently than you might.

How ironic, given that this is what most of the Mormons are doing here (appealing to their intuitive sense of justice) while I have insisted that we must accept what the Bible says on the subject.

You wrote:

(I can't recall if you're Calvinist though. You spend more time condemning my beliefs than explaining yours, so it's tough to tell.)

Argh. This is a MORMON APOLOGETICS Discussion Board. What are we supposed to be discussing here? Besides, I have had a lot to say about my own beliefs.

Give me a while to recover from this off-the-wall complaint, and I'll try to respond later to the rest of your post.

[SilverKnight]

at some point every human being who is not mentally retarded will, if he or she lives long enough, reach a point of culpability as a sinner.

And at that point they are damned, as soon as the first sin is committed - according to your theology.

So virtually every man, woman, and child ever born on planet earth can expect to spend eternity in a lake of fire for this?

You can quote all the scripture you like. But for most rational thinking people this belief approaches insanity.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Of course there are dozens of people on this board alone who do not believe that Jesus and the writers of the NT said any such thing.

First Corinthians 15:22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Luke 2:10: And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

John 12:32: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Colossians 1: 16 and 20: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

And for doubters like me:

John 12:47: And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world

Word, sansfoy. Good additions to the growing list of scriptures regarding God's "universal salvific will."

[LifeOnaPlate]

How ironic, given that this is what most of the Mormons are doing here (appealing to their intuitive sense of justice) while I have insisted that we must accept what the Bible says on the subject.

I wasn't pointing out irony, I was pointing out the possible disconnect in the conversation, which you now make explicit, namely: you privilege your reading of the New Testament as the decisive factor regardless of whether that reading is contested.

Argh. This is a MORMON APOLOGETICS Discussion Board. What are we supposed to be discussing here? Besides, I have had a lot to say about my own beliefs.

Actually, according to that link in your signature, you spend a considerable amount of time preaching against my faith rather than preaching for yours. Hence, the C.S. Lewis quote in my sig which I fancy quite a bit.

Give me a while to recover from this off-the-wall complaint, and I'll try to respond later to the rest of your post.

You could simply clarify whether you are Calvinist or not, shouldn't take too much time.

[LifeOnaPlate]

And at that point they are damned, as soon as the first sin is committed - according to your theology.

So virtually every man, woman, and child ever born on planet earth can expect to spend eternity in a lake of fire for this?

Not virtually all, just the vast, vast majority (Romans).

[SilverKnight]

And this is why I believe that evangelicals are offering a magical cure to a non-existent ailment. What sin is so grievous that it merits eternal punishment?

Truer words never spoken.

I've listened to Christians who feel it is their mission to evangelize mormons.

When they list their motivations for doing so, the often invoke the analogies of a burning house, or a cancer patient:

They claim that mormons are like a family trapped in a burning house, and it is their moral duty to rush in and save them, or at least inform them that their house is on fire.

They claim that mormons are also like a patient who doesn't know they have terminal cancer, they are the doctor, and it is their moral obligation to tell mormons the blunt truth that they are stricken with terminal illness.

Once told the grim news by these Christian Evangelists, mormons are inclined to go outside and take a look for themselves - and can plainly see no smoke or fire.

Likewise they go and get tested for cancer - they feel fine and the results all come back negative.

After that, mormons are unlikely to be fooled again by fake firemen reporting illusory house fires or unlicensed doctors diagnosing phantom diseases.