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

[David T]

From the Eternal Marriage Thread:

Evangelical theology's claim that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation is not comparable to the Mormon claim that its physical ordinances are mandatory for salvation or exaltation. The guy living in outer Mongolia in 400 BC is damned, if he is damned, because he was a sinner, not because he happened never to have heard of Christ. No one will be condemned for not hearing of Christ; all who are condemned will be condemned for sins they knowingly and willfully committed. God is just. Now, if God has some way for that Mongolian to be saved even though he lived before Christ came and never heard the gospel, that is indeed God's business, but that possibility is outside the revealed gospel in the Bible. Mormonism, on the other hand, claims to have the answer to how people who never heard of the Mormon religion can obtain all of its promised blessings, including exaltation: proxy rituals performed in the temple.

Rob, please clarify if I am understanding your views correctly.

a) since the fall, all men are created inherently as sinners (IE, they will inevitably and unavoidably sin)

b) Salvation is only possible through Faith in Christ

c) God may not choose to give individuals an opportunity to accept Salvation through Christ

d) The punishment for sinners who have not accepted Salvation through Christ is Eternal Torment

Therefore:

e) it is indeed possible that God would create an individual, knowing He would inevitably sin, and not provide an opportunity or option to remove the penalty for that sin, and justly condemn that sinner to an eternal torment.

and

f) it is possible that God has set this situation in play for billions of people, who were created without an option for Salvation from their inevitable transgressions.

Rob, please clarify any misunderstanding or misrepresentation I may have made. I want to make sure I am addressing your actual beliefs, and not a caricature (or Straw Man) of them.

Also, for everyone. I shouldn't have to say this, but keep insults and assumptions of motives and character and degree of scriptural literacy out of this thread. I don't want to see it. I will report delete it, even if I like you. It's not conducive to the discussion I want to have. Repeated offenders will be banned from the thread.

Edited June 8, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

From the Eternal Marriage Thread:

Rob, please clarify any misunderstanding or misrepresentation I may have made. I want to make sure I am addressing your actual beliefs, and not a caricature (or Straw Man) of them.

Great thread. I think this is a good idea to explore this issue a little more.

[fatherofone]

Great thread. I think this is a good idea to explore this issue a little more.

definitely have my curiosity up, curious where this will end up

[LeSellers]

e) it is indeed possible that God would create an individual, knowing He would inevitably sin, and not provide an opportunity or option to remove the penalty for that sin, and justly condemn that sinner to an eternal torment.

and

f) it is possible that God has set this situation in play for billions of people, who were created without an option for Salvation from their inevitable transgressions.

Given the results, I see no difference between this and God's actively condemning someone for no other reason than that he did not ever hear the name of Jesus Christ.

From a ragmatic point of view, the result being identical, what difference does it make if one rejects the Gospel or one simply never hears it?

Lehi

[David T]

Given the results, I see no difference between this and God's actively condemning someone for no other reason than that he did not ever hear the name of Jesus Christ.

From a ragmatic point of view, the result being identical, what difference does it make if one rejects the Gospel or one simply never hears it?

Lehi

I recognize Rob's distinction: individuals are punished for sin, not for rejecting Christ. Accepting Christ allows one to be reprieved from the Just Punishment. If I understand correctly, the point is that once you sin, according to God's Justice, you deserve Eternal Death. God's punishment is for what is done, not what is not done. And that is an important distinction.

What I am asking is if Rob believes that while God will definitely enact Justice with all men, is it possible that God will not offer all men the opportunity to receive His Mercy?

Edited June 7, 2011 by nackhadlow

[LeSellers]

I recognize Rob's distinction: individuals are punished for sin, not for rejecting Christ. Accepting Christ allows one to be reprieved from the Just Punishment. If I understand correctly, the point is that once you sin, according to God's Justice, you deserve Eternal Death. God's punishment is for what is done, not what is not done. And that is an important distinction.

I disagree. If God puts a man in a situation where he cannot exercise faith in Jesus Christ, and then condemns him for failing to have faith in Christ, how is that different from condemning him for his sins?

There may be an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion here, but for the man involved, it's just philosophizinf while his soul burns.

What I am asking is if Rob believes that while God will definitely enact Justice with all men, is it possible that God will not offer all men the opportunity to receive His Mercy?

Whiole I can respect (or at least acknowledge) the distinction, It's a bit harder to figure out the pratical implications.

Lehi

Edited June 8, 2011 by LeSellers

[David T]

I disagree. If God puts a man in a situsation where he cannot exercise faith in Jesus Christ, and then condemns him for failing to have faith in Christ, how is that different from condemning him for his sins?

It's the difference between punishing someone for something they did actually do, and punishing someone for not doing something they could not do.

I recognize you see the end result being the same, if sinning is an inevitability, and accepting Christ is the only way to bypass the penalty of the inevitability. But the distinction is still important when it comes to the discussion.

Edited June 8, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So,a...... were is Rob? I hope he is doing well.

Hope to hear from him soon. I have some thoughts but I want to wait until he chimes in.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Nemesis]

Nackhadlow should now have control of this discussion as a moderator. He can soft delete posts, ban posters from the thread (its up on the Ban Central Button) and can close the thread.

Nemesis

[David T]

Thanks!

I have clipped out some of the previous comments that were just musings on how terrible the assumed view must be, and how blessed we are with modern revelation, etc. They may have their place elsewhere, but are not conducive to the point of this thread.

No offense intended. Deletion of a post does not mean your participation is not welcome, just that the particular post is not in line with the thread's stated purpose and rules set out in the OP.

This is not a thread to pass judgement, it is a thread to ask legitimate questions, and answer those that are presented. It should be useful as a reference for further discussions related to soteriology.

Edited June 8, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Zeta-Flux]

It's the difference between punishing someone for something they did actually do, and punishing someone for not doing something they could not do.

I recognize you see the end result being the same, if sinning is an inevitability, and accepting Christ is the only way to bypass the penalty of the inevitability. But the distinction is still important when it comes to the discussion.

It was my impression that Calvinism presupposes man is created depraved. Thus, he *is* punished for not doing something he could not do (namely, he could not avoid sinning).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Given the results, I see no difference between this and God's actively condemning someone for no other reason than that he did not ever hear the name of Jesus Christ.

From a ragmatic point of view, the result being identical, what difference does it make if one rejects the Gospel or one simply never hears it?

Lehi

I think that a just God would have to give all an opportunity if on this basis all will be judged.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

I have written a book that in large part is devoted to discussing this very issue: Sense and Nonsense about Heaven and Hell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007). Obviously, any answers I can present here will be rather abbreviated. But let me go ahead and comment on your summary of what you suppose my view to be.

a) since the fall, all men are created inherently as sinners (IE, they will inevitably and unavoidably sin)

This is not exactly my view. First, God doesn’t “create” people “as sinners.” The only human beings whom God created directly were Adam and Eve, and he created them innocent; all other human beings come into existence through the procreation process from their parents (with the virginal conception and birth of Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate, an important exception). We who are Adam and Eve’s descendants all inherit from them the fallen, corrupt constitution or state in which we find ourselves, not as a result of God’s creative fiat but as a result of that original act of rebellion against God (Gen. 3; Rom. 5:12-19). Perhaps it will be helpful to you for me to explain that I hold to the traducian view that human beings (body and soul) are generated into existence from their parents, rather than the creationist view that each person’s soul or spirit is specially created de novo.

Second, depending on exactly what you mean by it, I would qualify or deny the statement that all people “inevitably and unavoidably sin.” To say that God creates an individual in such a way that the individual inevitably will sin implies that God is responsible for that individual being a sinner. This is not correct. Biblically, each sinner is responsible and accountable for his own sin. It is true that we cannot help the fact that we were born with a corrupt constitution that predisposes us to sin as we reach the point of development where we can make morally and spiritually responsible choices. It is also true that all people who reach that point do in fact sin. However, it is not true that we have no choice but to sin. At each moment we have the physical and mental capacity to make a choice. The fact that I am a sinner does not mean that at every opportunity to commit adultery I will in fact do so. I may be predisposed to commit adultery (in fact, to be quite frank, as a typical adult male I recognize such predisposition in myself, even as a redeemed Christian), but that does not make it inevitable that I will do so on any one occasion or at all. Should I ever commit adultery, I will not be able justly to blame God. The same is true of all sins generally and of all people generally. No one may rightly claim when he is tempted that God is responsible for tempting him (James 1:13-15). We cannot blame God.

I should point out that LDS doctrine does not provide a clear alternative on this point. Mormonism acknowledges that all people eventually get around to committing sin. Most Mormons acknowledge that God knows we will do so. Yet LDS theology also denies that God is in any way responsible for the fact that we commit sin. Someone might well ask you, if your God knew ahead of time that I would commit sin and be an unrepentant unbeliever, why would he allow that to happen? Why didn’t he take steps to convince me to take a different path? The standard LDS response would be that we have free agency and therefore don’t have to commit sin, so that we are responsible for our actions. Well, I would agree, even though I understand some aspects of this conclusion differently (for example, I don’t believe in preexistence of souls). I think the corruption of the fall does make it in some sense “inevitable” that we will each sin in some way, but not that any particular sin is inevitable. Thus, I hold that we are not responsible for our corrupt state but we are responsible for making the choices we do in that state.

Third, I do hold that the norm is that all human beings commit acts of sin; in general, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). But in my view there are significant and surprisingly numerous exceptions (in addition, of course, to Jesus Christ). Paul teaches in the same epistle that the unborn twins Jacob and Esau had done nothing good or bad while still in their mother’s womb (Rom. 9:11). I take this to mean at a minimum that children who die before they are born die innocent of any sin. The Bible also teaches that children have not yet reached a point of accountability for knowing good from evil (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16). The Bible doesn’t specify an age of accountability, which I think reflects wisdom: human beings develop moral awareness at different rates and reach moral accountability at different ages. So as I see it, billions of human beings never commit sin because they never become morally culpable for doing good or bad. These billions would include all unborn children, billions of children who die before they develop adequate moral awareness, and those human beings who are mentally incapable of developing such moral awareness (imbeciles or those who are severely mentally impaired). I have no way of quantifying this category of people definitively, but I would think we are talking about half or more of all human beings who have ever been conceived. This category of human beings, who have never committed sins, will not be judged or condemned, since judgment is always on the basis of what people have done (Rom. 2:6 and many other texts). You could say that they will be “saved” in the sense that they will be liberated from the corrupt state they share with the rest of us, but they will not need to be forgiven of sins because they haven’t committed any.

b) Salvation is only possible through Faith in Christ

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. They knew the true God (who would later become incarnate as Jesus Christ) and knew that he offered them mercy and forgiveness as a gift of his grace. They knew that by trusting in his provision of mercy they could be right before God (the classic OT text on this point being Gen. 15:6). But if we accept the OT presentation of things (and of course I do), they did not have advance explicit knowledge that God would become incarnate as Jesus Christ, die on a cross for their sins, and rise from the dead. There were, to be sure, prophetic and typological revelations foreshadowing or anticipating the redemptive work of Christ, but not in the explicit way represented, for example, in the Book of Mormon. They were saved by Christ, and they were saved through faith in God (who is now known to us specifically in Christ), but they did not need to know the specific facts that we now know as history with regard to Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Hypothetically, it is possible that other people not known to us from the OT also trust in God’s mercy in a saving way even while they lack the knowledge of the historical Jesus Christ and his redemptive acts. There is enough revelation generally available to all people through nature and conscience to convince anyone that there is a Creator of all things, that we are morally and spiritually accountable to him, and that we fail to meet his standards (Rom. 1:18-2:16). Those who have not been exposed to God’s special revelations to Israel and the church still know enough to be held accountable to God. It is hypothetically possible, then, for such people, aware of their sin and their need to be reconciled to the Creator, to appeal to him for mercy. Unfortunately, we don't know whether any significant number of unevangelized people have done or are doing this; we don’t know who such people might be, and what we do know suggests they would be the exception rather than the rule among those who are not confessing Christians. Paul presents the fact of general revelation as the basis for universal culpability, not as the basis for thinking that many unevangelized people will be saved based on the knowledge they have.

c) God may not choose to give individuals an opportunity to accept Salvation through Christ.

Correct (though I think you mean “God may choose not to give...”). God is not obliged to offer anyone salvation. That he makes it available to anyone is grace, and grace and mercy are by definition undeserved, so that God is not obliged to give them to anyone. No one has any just grounds for complaint if God chooses not to extend mercy to them (Rom. 9:14-22). Indeed, God owes us absolutely nothing (Job 1:21-22; 2:10).

I have already suggested that it is possible for people who are ignorant of the revelation given in the Bible to trust in God to show them mercy and thereby be saved. Some evangelicals view this possibility as establishing the possibility of large numbers of the unevangelized being saved. I’m very cautious on this point; I acknowledge the theoretical possibility without taking a position on how common this might in actuality be.

A smaller number of evangelicals believe that God does in fact give every sinner an opportunity to accept salvation through Christ (perhaps at the moment of death), but I don’t see any basis for this idea in the Bible. I’m not presuming to tell God not to do so, and I don’t see any clear disproof of the idea in the Bible, either, but the idea seems very speculative. William Lane Craig, an evangelical philosopher, suggests that God knows (in what philosophers call middle knowledge) what people would do given the opportunity, and that God ensures that everyone who would have trusted Christ after hearing about him does in fact hear about him. In other words, anyone who dies without hearing the gospel would, on Craig’s view, have rejected it had he or she heard it. This is an attractive suggestion but again is speculative, having no clear basis in the Bible.

Bottom line: God is not obliged to offer salvation to every individual sinner. If he does offer the gospel to the unevangelized, it would seem to be the exception rather than the rule, though it is impossible to quantify how much of an exception it might be.

d) The punishment for sinners who have not accepted Salvation through Christ is Eternal Torment.

This statement presupposes point (b) above, which I have suggested needs qualification. Furthermore, the eternal punishment of the wicked is not “one size fits all.” There are gradations or degrees of judgment (Luke 12:47-48). The punishments meted out will fit the crimes committed. No one will be punished more severely than he or she deserves. This is a very important point; taken seriously and consistently, it overcomes the usual objection that the doctrine of eternal punishment unfairly consigns viciously evil and more typically sinful people to the same fate.

Therefore:

e) it is indeed possible that God would create an individual, knowing He would inevitably sin, and not provide an opportunity or option to remove the penalty for that sin, and justly condemn that sinner to an eternal torment.

I have already noted ways in which I would qualify the premises on which this conclusion is based. God does know that some people in his creation will sin, and he is just if he condemns them eternally without first offering them in a direct manner an opportunity to repent and be saved. But (1) he is not responsible for their being sinners, (2) sufficient revelation is generally available to all people to hold them accountable for their failure to seek God’s mercy, (3) it is possible that he provides such opportunities to many people though we cannot say to whom or to how many he might do so, and (4) whatever punishment sinners receive will be justly measured.

f) it is possible that God has set this situation in play for billions of people, who were created without an option for Salvation from their inevitable transgressions.

With the qualifications made above, yes, it may be that billions of people will be lost without the kind of opportunity for salvation that you have in mind (i.e., a direct, overt presentation to each individual of the gospel). Whether that is the case for billions I would not state dogmatically, but it does seem possible or even likely to be so and if it is so there is nothing whatsoever unjust about it.

At this point I’d like to make some further comments on this topic.

I have zero interest in advocating a theology that maximizes the number of people who will be condemned for eternity. I have nothing to gain from such a doctrinal move. The idea of anyone, even one person, spending eternity in what Revelation calls the lake of fire holds no pleasure for me. However, that is not to say that I think the notion is inherently unjust. Quite the contrary: I am of the opinion that a lot of people deserve it. But the thought does not make me happy.

I would like to see as many people escape Hell as possible, but I recognize that not everyone will. Unless we assume a consistent universalism in which absolutely everyone will enjoy everlasting life in some blessed state, we must acknowledge that some people will be condemned. How many? I don’t know, but I do know this: we cannot judge theologies by scoring them on the assumption that the theology with the fewest people condemned wins (just as we cannot judge them on the assumption that the theology with the fewest saved people wins). Our theology must be subject to the word of God in Scripture. If it teaches that many people will be lost, then that’s the way it will be. If it leaves the matter somewhat vague or leaves some of our questions unanswered, we should too. I also don’t think we are in a position to know how many people condemned for eternity is “too many.” Are billions too many? Well, then, are millions acceptable? No? How about thousands? We are not competent to make such judgments. I am confident that the Judge of the whole earth will do right (Gen. 18:25), and I accept his revelation in the Bible that this means that many people—how many we are not told—are on the broad path to destruction (Matt. 7:13).

Then the questions become how people can avoid being among those condemned and what we can do to help them. The only sure way I know that people can be assured of unending life in God’s redeemed world is by throwing themselves unqualifiedly on the mercy of God in Jesus Christ. I realize there are hypothetical or theoretical scenarios in which those who don’t trust in Christ as Savior might nevertheless be saved, but if I really want to help people I won’t be content with such hypotheticals; I will want to do what I can to bring before them the one sure way of salvation. Thus the best thing I can do for those who have not accepted the gospel is to do whatever I can to facilitate their doing so. That may mean taking the gospel to people who haven’t heard it, talking to people who have heard it but are confused about it or who have not yet accepted it, teaching Christians what the gospel means and how to articulate and defend it, and so forth.

It is interesting to observe how what troubles many within Christianity in our day did not trouble Jews and Christians in the biblical era. Jonah was not troubled by the idea of the Ninevites being condemned but rather by the idea of God sending him to the Ninevites to extend God’s mercy to them (Jonah 4:1-2). The New Testament writers do not seem at all scandalized or morally troubled by the fate of the unevangelized, and they rarely if ever address the issue directly. Rather, they state categorically the necessity of proclaiming Jesus Christ to people of all nations as their only hope of salvation. Jesus himself stated without apology that “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22), referring to what modern theologians call the scandal of particularity—the idea, offensive to many modern people, that God reveals himself redemptively to some people but not to all. Paul speaks of the Gentiles before their reception of the gospel as “without God and without hope in the world” (Eph. 2:12). What bothered many of Paul’s Jewish opponents about Paul’s message was that he was opening the door to salvation to Gentiles without requiring them to become observant Jews first. Neither Paul nor the Judaizers entertained the notion that the unevangelized were already acceptable to God. It was understood by all that the pagan nations were in darkness and under condemnation; what scandalized the Judaizers was that Paul wanted to let those unclean people be part of God’s covenant community. We read the Bible with a peculiarly modern mindset if we approach it with the attitude that God owes everyone the same opportunities for salvation. Such a perspective is alien to the Bible.

You wrote:

Rob, please clarify any misunderstanding or misrepresentation I may have made. I want to make sure I am addressing your actual beliefs, and not a caricature (or Straw Man) of them.

Also, for everyone. I shouldn't have to say this, but keep insults and assumptions of motives and character and degree of scriptural literacy out of this thread. I don't want to see it. I will report it, even if I like you. It's not conducive to the discussion I want to have.

I appreciate these comments very much.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[David T]

a) since the fall, all men are created inherently assinners (IE, they will inevitably and unavoidably sin)

This is not exactly my view. First, God doesn’t “create”people “as sinners.” The only human beings whom God created directly were Adamand Eve, and he created them innocent; all other human beings come intoexistence through the procreation process from their parents (with the virginalconception and birth of Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate, an importantexception). We who are Adam and Eve’s descendants all inherit from them thefallen, corrupt constitution or state in which we find ourselves, not as aresult of God’s creative fiat but as a result of that original act of rebellionagainst God (Gen. 3; Rom. 5:12-19). Perhaps it will be helpful to you for me toexplain that I hold to the traducian view that human beings (body and soul) aregenerated into existence from their parents, rather than the creationist viewthat each person’s soul or spirit is specially created de novo.

That is actually very helpful. And after I posted thatinitially, I realized that I probably should have phrased it in terms of theperfect creation of Adam, and the fallen state being solely their fault, andnot God’s. But I wasn’t sure if you held this view, or the personal specialcreation view. Thanks for clearing that up.

Second, depending on exactly what you mean by it, Iwould qualify or deny the statement that all people “inevitably and unavoidablysin.” To say that God creates an individual in such a way that the individualinevitably will sin implies that God is responsible for that individual being asinner. This is not correct. Biblically, each sinner is responsible andaccountable for his own sin. It is true that we cannot help the fact that wewere born with a corrupt constitution that predisposes us to sin as we reachthe point of development where we can make morally and spiritually responsiblechoices. It is also true that all people who reach that point do in fact sin.However, it is not true that we have no choice but to sin. At each moment wehave the physical and mental capacity to make a choice. The fact that I am asinner does not mean that at every opportunity to commit adultery I will infact do so. I may be predisposed to commit adultery (in fact, to be quitefrank, as a typical adult male I recognize such predisposition in myself, evenas a redeemed Christian), but that does not make it inevitable that I will doso on any one occasion or at all. Should I ever commit adultery, I will not beable justly to blame God. The same is true of all sins generally and of allpeople generally. No one may rightly claim when he is tempted that God isresponsible for tempting him (James 1:13-15). We cannot blame God.

As I understand it, this wouldn’t be something due to thefallen nature, either. Would Adam and Eve – being created perfectly – also, inyour view, have had the equal disposition to sin? Or is their giving intotemptation viewed as a specific, especially evil act of knowing Rebellion(which may not be your position – I understand that is the Jehovah’s Witnessview of Adam)? Or was it just a mistake?

I think the corruption of the fall does make it insome sense “inevitable” that we will each sin in some way, but not that anyparticular sin is inevitable. Thus, I hold that we are not responsible for ourcorrupt state but we are responsible for making the choices we do in thatstate.

I guess this reinforces my question concerning thedifference between fallen man, and unfallen man (apart from physical/mortal)aspects because it appears that both are inclined to sin.

Third, I do hold that the norm is that all humanbeings commit acts of sin; in general, “all have sinned and fall short of theglory of God” (Rom. 3:23). But in my view there are significant andsurprisingly numerous exceptions (in addition, of course, to Jesus Christ).Paul teaches in the same epistle that the unborn twins Jacob and Esau had donenothing good or bad while still in their mother’s womb (Rom. 9:11). I take thisto mean at a minimum that children who die before they are born die innocent ofany sin.

Good to know : )

The Bible also teaches that children have not yetreached a point of accountability for knowing good from evil (Deut. 1:39; Isa.7:15-16). The Bible doesn’t specify an age of accountability, which I thinkreflects wisdom: human beings develop moral awareness at different rates andreach moral accountability at different ages. So as I see it, billions of humanbeings never commit sin because they never become morally culpable for doinggood or bad. These billions would include all unborn children, billions ofchildren who die before they develop adequate moral awareness, and those humanbeings who are mentally incapable of developing such moral awareness (imbecilesor those who are severely mentally impaired). I have no way of quantifying thiscategory of people definitively, but I would think we are talking about half ormore of all human beings who have ever been conceived. This category of humanbeings, who have never committed sins, will not be judged or condemned, sincejudgment is always on the basis of what people have done (Rom. 2:6 and manyother texts). You could say that they will be “saved” in the sense that theywill be liberated from the corrupt state they share with the rest of us, butthey will not need to be forgiven of sins because they haven’t committed any.

So I take this to mean you believe children who have notreached moral accountability are redeemed from physical corruption (which theyinherited from their parents). Is there any other kind of inherent corruptionthey would have that would need to be redeemed from?

[David T]

b) Salvation is only possible through Faith in Christ

This is also not exactly my view. Salvation is only possibleby Christ, and only actualized through faith in God, but that faith need notinclude cognition of the specific facts about Jesus Christ and his death andresurrection. Old Testament saints, in my view, were saved without knowingabout Christ's future death and resurrection. They knew the true God (who wouldlater become incarnate as Jesus Christ) and knew that he offered them mercy andforgiveness as a gift of his grace. They knew that by trusting in his provisionof mercy they could be right before God (the classic OT text on this pointbeing Gen. 15:6). But if we accept the OT presentation of things (and of courseI do), they did not have advance explicit knowledge that God would becomeincarnate as Jesus Christ, die on a cross for their sins, and rise from thedead. There were, to be sure, prophetic and typological revelationsforeshadowing or anticipating the redemptive work of Christ, but not in theexplicit way represented, for example, in the Book of Mormon. They were savedby Christ, and they were saved through faith in God (who is now known to usspecifically in Christ), but they did not need to know the specific facts thatwe now know as history with regard to Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

So let me try to rephrase. Men are saved through expressingfaith in the redemptive power of God, according to the degree in which God hasrevealed 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 correctspecifics of Christ-in-the-flesh only work as being valid prior to theResurrection? IE, could individuals have a degree of light in the True Godfollowing the Resurrection, not knowing of Christ, and still obtain Salvationby God (Christ?) without knowing of His Incarnate Atonement?

Hypothetically, it is possible that other people notknown to us from the OT also trust in God’s mercy in a saving way even whilethey lack the knowledge of the historical Jesus Christ and his redemptive acts.There is enough revelation generally available to all people through nature andconscience to convince anyone that there is a Creator of all things, that weare morally and spiritually accountable to him, and that we fail to meet hisstandards (Rom. 1:18-2:16). Those who have not been exposed to God’s specialrevelations to Israel and the church still know enough to be held accountableto God. It is hypothetically possible, then, for such people, aware of theirsin and their need to be reconciled to the Creator, to appeal to him for mercy.Unfortunately, we don't know whether any significant number of unevangelizedpeople have done or are doing this; we don’t know who such people might be, andwhat we do know suggests they would be the exception rather than the rule amongthose who are not confessing Christians. Paul presents the fact of generalrevelation as the basis for universal culpability, not as the basis forthinking that many unevangelized people will be saved based on the knowledgethey have.

Again, I will try to rephrase my understanding for yourcorrection.

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 havebeen some divine light given as revealed through the creation, that all should haverecognized, 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 whocomes to a state of moral accountability of necessity inherently knows, or willknow these things?

If not, are those who do not come to inherently realizethese 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?

[David T]

c) God may not choose to give individuals anopportunity to accept Salvation through Christ.

Correct (though I think you mean “God may choose not togive...”).

You’re right. I did.

God is not obliged to offer anyone salvation. That hemakes it available to anyone is grace, and grace and mercy are by definitionundeserved, so that God is not obliged to give them to anyone. No one has anyjust grounds for complaint if God chooses not to extend mercy to them (Rom.9:14-22). Indeed, God owes us absolutely nothing (Job 1:21-22; 2:10).

One should just be grateful he allowed us to be created ingeneral. Even if we were created to the end that we would be destroyed.

Which brings an interesting question, I think.

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

I have already suggested that it is possible forpeople who are ignorant of the revelation given in the Bible to trust in God toshow them mercy and thereby be saved. Some evangelicals view this possibilityas establishing the possibility of large numbers of the unevangelized beingsaved. I’m very cautious on this point; I acknowledge the theoreticalpossibility without taking a position on how common this might in actuality be.

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

A smaller number of evangelicals believe that Goddoes in fact give every sinner an opportunity to accept salvation throughChrist (perhaps at the moment of death), but I don’t see any basis for thisidea in the Bible. I’m not presuming to tell God not to do so, and I don’t seeany clear disproof of the idea in the Bible, either, but the idea seems veryspeculative.

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

William Lane Craig, an evangelical philosopher,suggests that God knows (in what philosophers call middle knowledge) whatpeople would do given the opportunity, and that God ensures that everyone whowould have trusted Christ after hearing about him does in fact hear about him.In other words, anyone who dies without hearing the gospel would, on Craig’s view,have rejected it had he or she heard it. This is an attractive suggestion butagain is speculative, having no clear basis in the Bible.

Which is in many ways similar to the LDS view – and in fact,as I’m sure you’re aware, is worded very similarly to an early document in theD&C.

Bottom line: God is not obliged to offer salvation toevery individual sinner. If he does offer the gospel to the unevangelized, itwould seem to be the exception rather than the rule, though it is impossible toquantify how much of an exception it might be.

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

1) Adam and Eve’s

2) Their Own

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

[David T]

d) The punishment for sinners who have not acceptedSalvation through Christ is Eternal Torment.

This statement presupposes point (b) above, which I havesuggested needs qualification. Furthermore, the eternal punishment of thewicked is not “one size fits all.” There are gradations or degrees of judgment(Luke 12:47-48). The punishments meted out will fit the crimes committed. Noone will be punished more severely than he or she deserves. This is a veryimportant point; taken seriously and consistently, it overcomes the usualobjection that the doctrine of eternal punishment unfairly consigns viciouslyevil and more typically sinful people to the same fate.

Interesting. So if I understand, you believe, somewhatopposite to a degree of LDS, that instead of ‘degrees of glory’, there are ‘degreesof eternal damnation’?

[Calm]

Clarification please:

” The only human beings whom God created directly were Adam and Eve, and he created them innocent; all other human beings come into existence through the procreation process from their parents

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?

[PacMan]

Rob,

I found the conversation interesting, but admittedly did not finish reading your response. If you have time to bullet-point your comments, I think it would be helpful in that I agreed with a great deal of what you said.

That being said:

God is not obliged to offer anyone salvation. That he makes it available to anyone is grace, and grace and mercy are by definition undeserved, so that God is not obliged to give them to anyone. No one has any just grounds for complaint if God chooses not to extend mercy to them (Rom. 9:14-22). Indeed, God owes us absolutely nothing (Job 1:21-22; 2:10).

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.

PacMan

[PacMan]

P.S.

Rob,

The only human beings whom God created directly were Adam and Eve, and he created them innocent; all other human beings come into existence through the procreation process from their parents

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. There is no break in either actual or proximate causation. Frankly, the only way to get around this conundrum (which all religions face) is to believe that God created individuals that knowingly had a choice in coming to an imperfect state. At the point that such a choice was made with complete knowledge and understanding and based not on imperfection but subjective (if not random) preference, only then can God be exempted from liability. Not a teaching of the Church, of course, but the only way I believe it can be explained.

PacMan

[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.

[Calm]

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.

[Calm]

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 June 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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">