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

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

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

I'm not asking you to do so. But what is the difference between accepting something that God says in Scripture and something that God says in a vision? If, as you said, you cannot believe what the Bible says if it doesn't fit your sense or reason or justice, why would you believe what you heard in a vision?

You said:

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

If you agree with me that the Bible is true, then we really have no need to argue about it, do we? Why don't we build on that agreement as common ground, if indeed you do believe that the Bible is true?

You wrote:

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

I have already done so.

You wrote:

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

God created it good, but it has since been corrupted by the fall. Being human is good; being inclined to sin and being mortal are bad. If the whole human race was afflicted with cancer, it would not be "normal," but it would still be universal. It would be a disorder that exists in all people. That is what sin is like.

You wrote:

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

Of course I could be mistaken about all this.

That was nackhadlow's wording, not mine. It depends on what one means by "opportunity." It may be that everyone gets an opportunity but some people get a better opportunity than others. For example, it is a better opportunity to hear the gospel when you're five years old than when you're seventy-five, because by the time you're seventy-five you may be so hardened that you are far less open to the gospel. Is God obliged to give everyone the same opportunity? I don't see why, and I don't see how he could make good on such an obligation.

I'm glad you agree that human beings are inclined to sin. Do you agree that people deserve to be punished for their sins even though they were inclined to sin?

[David T]

If you wish to continue them, please take discussions of reasons for or against believing the Bible, other scriptures, revelations, etc elsewhere.

I would also like to ask that questions that are on topic are asked with the assumption that the subject actually does honestly and sincerely and intellectually and faithfully believe the things they've professed, and that they do have an answer, explanation as to why they believe that way. Every question I have asked has not been intended as a "gotcha", but as an honest attempt to understand, and to have those explanations available to many who have an interest in further productive dialogue with Evangelicals such as Rob.

Edited June 10, 2011 by nackhadlow

[CV75]

Before the thread gets closed, would someone please explain to me:

Why the Hindu in post #25/27 is not given an opportunity to know what the Israelite knows sometime after his mortal life and before his judgment, or why God would not thus extend an opportunity for full mercy to him, so that he might then opt to receive it (full mercy translating into the highest degree of reward; partial mercy translating into “degrees of reward.”). I'm thinking of 1 Peter 3 and 4 scriptures about Christ preaching to the dead after their time in this life is over.

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

Thank you--

edit: (Asked in the spirit of post #52)

Edited June 10, 2011 by CV75

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

I approach theological issues from the foundation of the Bible as the word of God and the authoritative source for Christian doctrine. I find in the Bible that some beings, including the devil, his angels, and unredeemed humans, will suffer eternal punishment. My theological reflections proceed from the teaching given to us in the Bible, as best I can understand it.

To be frank, I don't know how Hell will be experienced and have every intention of not finding out. Although the wicked will suffer eternal punishment, it may be that this will not be experienced as a temporally linear yet endless series of distinct experiences of torment, one after another, ad infinitum. Eternal punishment is a state of eternal ruination in which the whole person is decimated or destroyed (but not annihilated), suffering eternal loss and utter darkness. It will be more or less painful depending on the extent of a person's sins, so that whatever it is like the punishment will fit the crime. Beyond that it is very difficult to comment without engaging in speculation. However, the Bible is clear that the punishment is eternal. It is true that we only live a finite amount of time in this mortal life, but sin against God is not quantifiable like stealing just so much money. Sin is a repudiation of the Creator of all things by a creature that was created and designed to exist forever. Apart from divine redemption, the fate of such a creature who sins against his Creator is that his endless existence will become endless loss, endless hopelessness, endless separation from the Creator. Is this just? I think so, but I don't trust my intuitions about what is just. Instead, I defer to God's revelation in Scripture.

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

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

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

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

I can comment on your questions later.

Before the thread gets closed, would someone please explain to me:

Why the Hindu in post #25/27 is not given an opportunity to know what the Israelite knows sometime after his mortal life and before his judgment, or why God would not thus extend an opportunity for full mercy to him, so that he might then opt to receive it (full mercy translating into the highest degree of reward; partial mercy translating into “degrees of reward.”). I'm thinking of 1 Peter 3 and 4 scriptures about Christ preaching to the dead after their time in this life is over.

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

Thank you--

edit: (Asked in the spirit of post #52)

[mfbukowski]

If you wish to continue them, please take discussions of reasons for or against believing the Bible, other scriptures, revelations, etc elsewhere.

I would also like to ask that questions that are on topic are asked with the assumption that the subject actually does honestly and sincerely and intellectually and faithfully believe the things they've professed, and that they do have an answer, explanation as to why they believe that way. Every question I have asked has not been intended as a "gotcha", but as an honest attempt to understand, and to have those explanations available to many who have an interest in further productive dialogue with Evangelicals such as Rob.

Just for the record, I certainly agree to these terms.

[David T]

Here's a thread I created (and will not seek to moderate that may address some of the side issues, and all should feel free to chime in on uninhibited: Who Are You To God? Slave? Child? Spouse? All?

[David T]

Thanks, Rob.

nackhadlow,

I approach theological issues from the foundation of the Bible as the word of God and the authoritative source for Christian doctrine. I find in the Bible that some beings, including the devil, his angels, and unredeemed humans, will suffer eternal punishment. My theological reflections proceed from the teaching given to us in the Bible, as best I can understand it.

To be frank, I don't know how Hell will be experienced and have every intention of not finding out. Although the wicked will suffer eternal punishment, it may be that this will not be experienced as a temporally linear yet endless series of distinct experiences of torment, one after another, ad infinitum. Eternal punishment is a state of eternal ruination in which the whole person is decimated or destroyed (but not annihilated), suffering eternal loss and utter darkness. It will be more or less painful depending on the extent of a person's sins, so that whatever it is like the punishment will fit the crime. Beyond that it is very difficult to comment without engaging in speculation. However, the Bible is clear that the punishment is eternal. It is true that we only live a finite amount of time in this mortal life, but sin against God is not quantifiable like stealing just so much money. Sin is a repudiation of the Creator of all things by a creature that was created and designed to exist forever. Apart from divine redemption, the fate of such a creature who sins against his Creator is that his endless existence will become endless loss, endless hopelessness, endless separation from the Creator. Is this just? I think so, but I don't trust my intuitions about what is just. Instead, I defer to God's revelation in Scripture.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not asking you to do so. But what is the difference between accepting something that God says in Scripture and something that God says in a vision? If, as you said, you cannot believe what the Bible says if it doesn't fit your sense or reason or justice, why would you believe what you heard in a vision?

I have agreed not to pursue this line of questioning, but to clarify a misrepresentation of my position, I will just answer briefly and then let it go. I never said I had a "vision", I said I had an "experience". The difference between accepting the Bible because it asserts that it is the word of God and accepting it because one knows- first hand- that it is true is that in the first case, one is accepting blindly a book for what it asserts- and all scriptures, Hindu Muslim, Zorastrian etc ALL assert they are "true"- the question is which really IS true. I have tried to discuss this with you many times, but will not pursue it further on this thread unless you again bring it up again; I am certain you will not however. It's ironic that you now bring it up since we have been specifically prohibited from discussing it further.

If you agree with me that the Bible is true, then we really have no need to argue about it, do we? Why don't we build on that agreement as common ground, if indeed you do believe that the Bible is true?

I would be happy to do that; it is our interpretations which differ.

God created it good, but it has since been corrupted by the fall. Being human is good; being inclined to sin and being mortal are bad. If the whole human race was afflicted with cancer, it would not be "normal," but it would still be universal. It would be a disorder that exists in all people. That is what sin is like.

Yes, but it seems you are missing the point. <edit- I changed the next sentence- I left out a "not"> If we were all afflicted with cancer, would you think it fair that all but those who failed to cure themselves would suffer eternal torment for having cancer?

That was nackhadlow's wording, not mine. It depends on what one means by "opportunity." It may be that everyone gets an opportunity but some people get a better opportunity than others. For example, it is a better opportunity to hear the gospel when you're five years old than when you're seventy-five, because by the time you're seventy-five you may be so hardened that you are far less open to the gospel. Is God obliged to give everyone the same opportunity? I don't see why, and I don't see how he could make good on such an obligation.

Well of course, I believe that the LDS view in fact does just that- it gives everyone the same fair opportunity to hear the gospel, if not on this earth, then on the other side, as well as receiving all the ordinances of the gospel.

And as far as God giving all the same opportunity, surely you understand that even in human justice systems, those with diminished "opportunity" to do good are judged differently than others. Clearly those who cannot control themselves for whatever reason are not judged or punished the same as those who have a full opportunity to do otherwise.

That is clear even for humans in a court of law- should it not be infinitely more clear from God who is infinitely more just than we are?

I'm glad you agree that human beings are inclined to sin. Do you agree that people deserve to be punished for their sins even though they were inclined to sin?

I wish all to know I have no personal animosity toward Rob at all.

Edited June 10, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Vance]

Moved to new thread.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

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

Interesting points. Thanks for your preservative.

I am glad to get a more nuanced view of the EV view. I have to confess this is probably the first time I have seen this.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

nackhadlow,

You asked:

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

I am not Nack, but I will answer. I think in a certain sense the judgement that is based is eternal. For instance those that go to the Terrestrial kingdom are damned (ie, progression stops) eternally and they will not be able to move up kingdoms. Do I think people will spend all of eternity in torment? No.

As JS said if people new how glorious the lowest kingdom is they would kill themselves just to get to that kingdom. Paraphrasing of course.

Is their judgment a type of hell? Yes because it is not the fullness of glory that they could have obtained. So, in a certain sense there will be regret.

I doubt that we will be very close on this matter but who knows, we might not be that far apart on what God has in store for the damned.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

Before the thread gets closed, would someone please explain to me:

I seem to be the token evangelical participating at the moment, so that "someone" will have to be me.

Why the Hindu in post #25/27 is not given an opportunity to know what the Israelite knows sometime after his mortal life and before his judgment, or why God would not thus extend an opportunity for full mercy to him, so that he might then opt to receive it (full mercy translating into the highest degree of reward; partial mercy translating into “degrees of reward.”). I'm thinking of 1 Peter 3 and 4 scriptures about Christ preaching to the dead after their time in this life is over.

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

You've brought up a couple of passages here (1 Peter 3-4; Rom. 5:11-21), but I'm not sure if you are asking for exegetical comments on these passages or if you are focused on the "why" question with which you begin. I discuss both passages in my book Sense and Nonsense about Heaven and Hell and can discuss them here or in another thread if you like. It's also important to set the parameters of the discussion as far as what assumptions we bring to the subject. I assume that our doctrine should take into account all that the Bible says, with each passage interpreted in its context; that is, I assume that every passage teaches theological truth. It won't work to say that we're going to set aside some verses in favor of other verses.

[Calm]

As JS said if people new how glorious the lowest kingdom is they would kill themselves just to get to that kingdom. Paraphrasing of course.

This may be folklore as I don't believe anyone has found an actual source of him saying this.

See LOAP's excellent blog on the issue: http://www.lifeongol...-telestial.html

Nevertheless, I believe the quote is too unverifiable to be considered a sure statement of Joseph Smith. Of course, both he and Sidney Rigdon beheld the glory of the Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial kingdoms (see D&C 76) and managed to not commit suicide. Furthermore, even if Joseph said something similar (which I suspect he could have) I would not take such a statement as a prophecy or as doctrine, thinking that simply seeing the other side results in a suicide attempt.I place the statement in the "folk doctrine" arena, a "theological Twinkie" with the unpleasant inclusion of suicide.

Edited June 12, 2011 by calmoriah

[PacMan]

Rob Bowman,

"God is merciful toward those to whom he chooses to be merciful (Exod. 33:19; Rom. 9:15, 18)." If God chooses to be merciful to some and not others, then your position is false.

Yeah, and if the great divinity of this world is an alien named Billy-Bob with a sub-normal IQ of 45, both our positions are false. So what? Let us assume there was no “if,” which then makes the conclusion a complete logical fallacy. Your position (assuming the conclusion w/out the if) is based on an assumption that the bible is, at best, unclear about. Indeed, choosing one person does not preclude choosing all…which is required by the nature of God being just and equitable. Taking the bible in context of describing God’s nature and attributes makes it impossible to believe anything else. Unless you want to change the definitions of “equity” and “respecter of persons,” which are biblical terms.

There are two other important points you’re missing. Regarding your cite from Romans, the chapter seems to be an application of the parable of the talents. Indeed, God doesn’t owe it to me to make me rich, or better looking than anyone else, nor do I have a right at which point his gospel is to be offered. That makes sense, because it doesn’t affect salvation. Why would he do that? I’ll explain in my discussion of Rom 11, below. But, before leaving Rom 9, note your cited verse in Rom. 9:18. It is difficult to condemn one as obstinate, stubborn, or hardened, without ever having the alternative. In the end, I don’t read anything regarding the damnation and salvation of people…rather timing.

But as to your request that I provide a quote that all receive the mercy of Christ, before we get there directly, just use your nogg’n: If God is all loving and indeed our Father that seeks to give bread rather than stones, to not offer mercy (and the opportunity for salvation to all) is an opposition to those traits (unless you believe his father status is limited only to some?). Moreover, if you’re right, the only thing that John is demonstrating in Rev. 3:19-22 is that the lord is a jerk. “Behold I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” [Note the "any man" language.] What you seem to be proposing is that the following verse could have read is “but if I don’t like you or simply don’t favor you, I’ll whisper real quite so you can’t possibly hear me.” Of course the notion is absurd!

But I know you like citations, so I’ll give you a few:

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:22. Sounds like unmitigated universal mercy to me.

Another:

Tim 2:3-4 “…God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”

So despite wanting all men saved, not only will he NOT permit all to come unto the knowledge of the truth, but thereafter deny them mercy in saving them? That doesn’t make sense.

But those don’t say that that he might have mercy on all, right? OK:

Romans 11:32 “For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.”

The beauty of this chapter is that it brings the idea of the parable of the talents together with the doctrine that mercy is to be extend to all. Indeed, the individual situation is planned and scripted by God and done so for the benefit his great plan, that being to extend his mercy to all. I don’t know that it can be any clearer.

Since we're being blunt, your reasoning is just that, reasoning; it is not based on the Bible as a whole but is imposed on a few verses selectively cited out of context and pitted against the plain teaching of many passages in the Bible that God will damn some and save others.

Wrong. I fully resent reading the bible in such an adulterated way which requires a logically fallacious interpretation. You cannot come to the conclusion you’re pandering unless you seek to re-write the text in such a way to make it internally inconsistent! Not only is your conclusion NOT established by the text, but it completely proof-texts other important principles and crops them right out of the discussion.

Shockingly, rather than treat the topic of “damnation…constructively due to God withholding salvation from him,” you whimsically dismiss the ‘how God can thus be a respecter of persons’ as a pity appeal. I would have much preferred a cogent or otherwise direct response. Although, I must admit, arguing that God is no respecter of persons when it comes to offering salvation despite being a respecter of persons when making it available is a painful dance I don’t think you’re equipped to jig. Your interpretation is completely untenable.

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

First, I assumed we would have agreed on this text (apparently not). So to flesh this out a little more, what is Jesus talking about insofar as a non-baptism water birth is considered? There’s birth by the flesh, birth by water, and birth by the Spirit (John 3:5-6). So what in the world is birth by water, particularly in context of the rest of the chapter focusing on baptism? Seriously, what is he referring to? I’ve given my interpretation, so what’s yours?

Moreover, if you’re trying to take a cheap-shot at our beliefs on vicarious works, it’s ill conceived and dishonest (or ignorant). We believe that this is the life to prepare to meet God, so those rejecting the opportunity here have a lot to worry about. The equity of God is concerned for those without being given the opportunity here (and those in the grey in between are gratefully left to the judgment of God). Furthermore, let us not be so naïve to believe that we have everything recorded that Jesus did or said. John 21:25 puts that to rest, and our belief is not limited to such a narrow and incorrect view (concurrent with the bible’s teachings). Thus, I’m not bound to limit my gospel understanding to the bible (despite it being a terrifically good text).

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

Hehehe. That’s funny, and highly ironic…because the whole notion that there is some bright-line list between saving and damnable “essential” doctrines is fantasy to begin with. I think the notion that a more correct belief of how resurrection works saves one person while a less correct belief of how it works damns another, is quite indefensible. Both biblically, and equitably.

PacMan

Edited June 12, 2011 by PacMan

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

You wrote:

You cannot come to the conclusion you’re pandering....

What in the world did you mean by that?

[PacMan]

PacMan,

You wrote:

What in the world did you mean by that?

That's it? You ask for scriptures, apart from "reasoning." I gave both, and you want to know what I mean regarding your conclusion? I mean, that was halfway through my post, and that's what you focus on? That's all I get? Lame.

PacMan

Edited June 13, 2011 by PacMan

[David T]

Wrong. I fully resent reading the bible in such an adulterated way which requires a logically fallacious interpretation. You cannot come to the conclusion you’re pandering unless you seek to re-write the text in such a way to make it internally inconsistent! Not only is your conclusion NOT established by the text, but it completely proof-texts other important principles and crops them right out of the discussion.

And since Rob has very much made clear that is not what he intends to do, and that he bases his conclusions not on his desire of what he's like God to do, but on his close study of the text, please assume that he has an answer, and question accordingly.

A reminder from the OP:

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.

[PacMan]

nackhadlow,

And since Rob has very much made clear that is not what he intends to do, and that he bases his conclusions not on his desire of what he's like God to do, but on his close study of the text, please assume that he has an answer, and question accordingly.

A reminder from the OP:

Get off your indignate throne of power. The problem is his "close study" has thus ignored the citations he asked for, which were given. If someone wants to read half a post to nit-pick something ridiculous as to ignore the substance of the thread, that's lame. Frankly, I think that's against board rules (but I'm too lazy to look).

And considering he DID answer but failed to answer substantively, I'll question both his genuiness and your ability to make some iota of sense. Good grief.

PacMan

P.S. And if it makes a difference, I should have said "promulgating" rather than "pandering." My apologies.

Edited June 13, 2011 by PacMan

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

You wrote:

P.S. And if it makes a difference, I should have said "promulgating" rather than "pandering." My apologies.

I simply asked you what you meant when you said I was "pandering," and you have now responded by acknowledging that you had chosen an inaccurate word. Fine.

Your complaints that I "ignored" your biblical citations, that I "failed to answer substantively," that the question I asked was all I gave you, etc., assumed falsely that I was not prepared to discuss the substantive issues that you raised. I was and am prepared to do so, but I first wanted to clear up the unfortunate statement about which I asked you. Now perhaps we can move forward.

I had written that "God is merciful toward those to whom he chooses to be merciful (Exod. 33:19; Rom. 9:15, 18)" and concluded, "If God chooses to be merciful to some and not others, then your position is false." You replied:

Let us assume there was no “if,” which then makes the conclusion a complete logical fallacy.

I'm having trouble making sense of your argument here. You seem to be asking us to assume that it is not so that God chooses to be merciful to some and not others. You then seem to be saying that if we eliminate this premise my conclusion does not follow logically. Well, of course. Without premises no conclusion can follow because it's not following anything. No premises, no argument. But why should we assume that the premise is false? It is, after all, what the texts I cited actually say. God told Moses, "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy" (Exod. 33:19). This is a Hebraic way of saying "I will be gracious to whomever I choose and I will show mercy to whomever I choose" (as Paul explicitly explains in Romans 9:18). Paul interprets this text, along with another text from Exodus, to argue that God is perfectly just to show mercy to whomever he chooses. He argues from this principle that God has not failed to keep his promises if some Jews are not saved and if some Gentiles are saved. Let me quote the passage in full:

"6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: 'About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.' 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-- 12 she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' 13 As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.' 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion' [Exod. 33:19]. 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth' [Exod. 9:16]. 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?' 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump bone vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" (Rom. 9:6-24 ESV).

Paul says that not all Israelites "belong to Israel" (v. 6); this is already revealing a principle of selectivity, of election: God chooses some from Israel but not others. Not everyone physically descended from Abraham is counted as his seed or offspring, but only those whom he has promised to include by his choice in that offspring. Thus, of all Abraham's children only the descendants of Isaac, Sarah's son, are the children to whom the promise applies (vv. 7-9). But not all Isaac's descendants are included; only those descended from his son Jacob, with Esau and his descendants excluded (vv. 10-13). Paul insists here that this exclusion of Esau ("Jacob I loved but Esau I hated") is not based on Esau's lack of good works but on God's prior election or choice of Jacob: God had chosen to make the promise fulfilled through Jacob rather than Esau before either of them had done anything good or bad.

Paul anticipates the very sort of objection we might imagine and that some of us here probably have: Isn't this unfair of God, to choose Jacob and reject Esau from the promise of the covenant, before either of them had done anything good or bad? No, Paul responds, it isn't unfair (v. 14). To prove that it isn't unfair, Paul quotes Exodus 33:19 and concludes that the fulfillment of God's promise does not depend on human choices or efforts but on God's choice to show mercy to those whom he has chosen (vv. 15-16). Paul supports the negative side of his argument--that God is just not to choose everyone--by the example of Pharaoh: God's purpose for raising up Pharaoh was to use him as an object lesson for the world of God's power (v. 17, quoting Exodus 9:16). Paul concludes: "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills" (v. 18).

Once again, Paul anticipates the very objection you would undoubtedly have to all this: Why does God find fault with someone like Pharaoh if Pharaoh's hardening was the result of God's prior choice? How can Pharaoh be blamed if he cannot resist God's will? (v. 19). Paul had a great opportunity at this point to say something like, "Oh you've misunderstood; people resist God's will all the time. God didn't harden Pharaoh's heart; Pharaoh did that all by himself." But this isn't how Paul responds to the objection. Instead, he responds by insisting that God has the right to do with his creatures whatever he likes, just as a potter has the right to do whatever he chooses with the clay (vv. 20-21). God has the right to put up with "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" while he saves the "vessels of mercy" (vv. 22-23). Specifically, he has the right to put both Jews and Gentiles into either category (v. 24).

There's lots here to offend you theologically, I'm sure. All I'm seeking to establish from this passage is that God shows mercy on some but not on others. Some people will prove to be "vessels of mercy" while others "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." Evangelicals themselves have somewhat differing theological ways of putting this all together, but the passage absolutely contradicts universalism. God does not show mercy to absolutely every individual. This isn't a proof-texting argument, but a matter of reading the whole passage and following Paul's reasoning.

Now, this passage appears in the same book of the Bible as one of your proof texts (Rom. 11:32). You also cited Romans 5:11-21, though you didn't offer any sort of explanation of how this passage supports universalism. In separate posts I will comment on both passages. I will also comment on 1 Peter 3-4 separately.

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

You wrote:

But those don’t say that that he might have mercy on all, right? OK:

Romans 11:32 “For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.”

The beauty of this chapter is that it brings the idea of the parable of the talents together with the doctrine that mercy is to be extend to all. Indeed, the individual situation is planned and scripted by God and done so for the benefit his great plan, that being to extend his mercy to all. I don’t know that it can be any clearer.

Here is a perfect example of the necessity of reading statements in context. Let's get some of that context in front of us. I will quote the whole chapter, a piece at a time.

"1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 'Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.' 4 But what is God's reply to him? 'I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.' 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. 7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.' 9 And David says, 'Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; 10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever'" (Rom. 11:1-10 ESV).

This is actually a continuation of Paul's argument that began in Romans 9:6-24, the passage I discussed in my previous post. As there, Paul argues here that God saves some people from Israel but not all: he saves what Paul calls here a "remnant" of Israel (v. 5a). This remnant is chosen on the basis of God's grace, not on the basis of people's works (vv. 5b-6). The "elect," those whom God chose, received that grace, "but the rest were hardened" (v. 7; recall Paul's argument in Romans 9 that God was within his rights to show mercy to some and to harden others). Paul backs up his claim that God hardened some in Israel with quotations from the OT (vv. 8-10).

Paul continues:

"11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! 13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" (Rom. 11:11-15 ESV).

Paul tells the Gentile Christians in Rome that he views his ministry to Gentiles as strategic because he hopes that as he brings Gentiles to Jesus the Jewish Messiah, Paul will make his fellow Jesus jealous "and thus save some of them" (v. 14). Notice that Paul explicitly expects not that all of the Jews will be saved but that "some" of them will be saved. The rejection of Jesus by the Jews as a whole led to the gospel going out to the Gentiles; Paul hopes that in the end Jews will also turn in large numbers to Jesus.

"If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, 'Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.' 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. (Rom. 11:16-24 ESV)

Paul's analogy of the olive tree clearly teaches that some people will make it into the "tree" and some will not. At the time he was writing, many Gentiles were being grafted into the tree while many Jews were broken off. The difference between the two kinds of branches is simply that the branches that are part of the tree are connected to the tree by their faith while those who are unbelieving or lacking in faith are broken off (v. 20). Gentile members of the church who arrogantly presume on God's favor instead of humbling trusting in his mercy in Christ will find themselves broken off as well (vv. 20b-22). Jews who repent of their unbelief and turn to Christ will be grafted back into the tree (vv. 23-24). There is simply no plausible way to reconcile Paul's teaching here with universalism. Some will end up being part of the tree and some will not.

"Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob'; 27 'and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.' 28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. 33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 34 'For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?' 35 'Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen" (Rom. 11:25-36 ESV).

Paul has been speaking throughout Romans 9-11 about the salvation of Jews and Gentiles. He has been arguing, against the presumption that God is obligated by his promises to Israel to save all Jews, that God has the right to show mercy to some and to harden others, specifically to save some Gentiles and not to save some Jews (Romans 9). He explains that the gospel is a message of salvation to anyone, Jew or Gentile, who calls on the Lord Jesus for salvation (Romans 10). Now he rounds out his argument by arguing that God also has the right to lift the partial hardening on Israel and that it is God's plan to restore Israel as a whole (Romans 11). God's plan, then, is eventually to save both Jews and Gentiles, though the salvation of Israel as a whole will come only after the mass of Gentiles whom God chooses to save has come in. He is therefore speaking historically and generally of Jews collectively and of Gentiles collectively when he writes, "For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy" (vv. 30-31). "You" in this passage refers to Gentiles collectively; "they" refers to Jews collectively. Paul does not mean that every individual Gentile, believing or not, has received mercy (which would clearly contradict verses 16-24), but that Gentiles collectively have become the main recipients of God's mercy while the Jews collectively have not. Likewise not every Jew who has ever lived will in the end receive mercy, but there will come a time when the number of Gentiles brought into salvation will be full and the Jews collectively will have the hardening lifted and a mass of Jews will receive God's mercy.

It is in that context that Paul writes, "For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all" (v. 32). The word "all" here in context means all people generally irrespective of whether they are Jew or Gentile, not every person individually irrespective of whether they are believing. That is, "all" does not mean "all individuals" but "all groups," both Jews and Gentiles. God had shut up all groups of people to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all those groups as he chooses and pleases. Paul's reasoning here is what theologians call redemptive-historical, having to do with the historical unfolding of God's redemptive plan for the world. We misread it if we treat this verse out of context as a dogmatic assertion that God guarantees to show every individual mercy. Paul has already stated repeatedly that not all individuals, not even all individuals descended from the recipients of divine promises, actually obtain mercy.

I should make something explicit here: there is simply no exegetically defensible way to interpret Paul as saying that while not everyone will receive mercy, everyone will be offered mercy. The "all" in verse 32 is inclusive of the "you" and "they" in verse 31 who in turn are disobedient and then "received mercy." The "all" in verse 32b are the all on whom God will "have mercy," not merely offer mercy. The exegetical choice in verse 32 is between the universalist interpretation (God will save every individual) and the redemptive-historical interpretation (God will save the fullness of Gentiles and also save Israel as a whole). The universalist interpretation is excluded by Paul's insistence throughout Romans 9-11 that God chooses to save some by his grace, hardens others, and that salvation can be forfeited by unbelief. This leaves the redemptive-historical interpretation as the only exegetically viable position, the only one that fits the passage as a whole.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This may be folklore as I don't believe anyone has found an actual source of him saying this.

See LOAP's excellent blog on the issue: http://www.lifeongol...-telestial.html

Great point.

[mfbukowski]

I would like to point out that, with all the responses Mr. Bowman has to make, it appears that one of my posts has fallen through the cracks and would like to bring it up again since I think this point goes to the heart of the issue of the OP

If I understand him correctly Rob said that sin was like a "disorder" which has afflicted the entire human race- the analogy was drawn with cancer.

The area I am exploring is whether or not anyone should be punished at all for having a "disorder" which everyone is born with, or if such a disorder would be properly called a "disorder" at all. Going directly to this kind of definition, is death for example a "disorder"?

The central idea is that if everyone is born with such a hypothetical disorder, certainly they are not responsible for being born that way, and so punishing them for having such a disorder would be unjust.

If we were all afflicted with cancer, would you think it fair that all but those who failed to cure themselves would suffer eternal torment for having cancer?...

.... I believe that the LDS view ... gives everyone the same fair opportunity to hear the gospel, if not on this earth, then on the other side, as well as receiving all the ordinances of the gospel.

And as far as God giving all the same opportunity, surely you understand that even in human justice systems, those with diminished "opportunity" to do good are judged differently than others. Clearly those who cannot control themselves for whatever reason are not judged or punished the same as those who have a full opportunity to do otherwise.

That is clear even for humans in a court of law- should it not be infinitely more clear from God who is infinitely more just than we are?

I would appreciate it if you could answer this at your earliest convenience, Mr Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

Is it your opinion that sin is not analogous to a disease or disorder like cancer? Or do you agree with this assessment but contend that this condition means God could not justly punish people?

I must also remind you that it is not my view that God punishes people for having the "disorder" of a sinful inclination, but for willfully committing acts of sin despite knowing that they are wrong.

I would like to point out that, with all the responses Mr. Bowman has to make, it appears that one of my posts has fallen through the cracks and would like to bring it up again since I think this point goes to the heart of the issue of the OP

If I understand him correctly Rob said that sin was like a "disorder" which has afflicted the entire human race- the analogy was drawn with cancer.

The area I am exploring is whether or not anyone should be punished at all for having a "disorder" which everyone is born with, or if such a disorder would be properly called a "disorder" at all. Going directly to this kind of definition, is death for example a "disorder"?

The central idea is that if everyone is born with such a hypothetical disorder, certainly they are not responsible for being born that way, and so punishing them for having such a disorder would be unjust.

I would appreciate it if you could answer this at your earliest convenience, Mr Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

You wrote:

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:22. Sounds like unmitigated universal mercy to me.

I'll deal with this proof text before discussing Romans 5, because Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15 earlier and so the Romans 5 passage is an elaboration on the same theme as found in this text.

If you're serious about this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:22, then what you are defending is not a universal offer of salvation but universal salvation itself. Let's be clear about that.

Your reading of 1 Corinthians 15:22 assumes that the verse can be paraphrased as follows: "Because of Adam, everyone dies; now because of Christ, everyone will be made alive." However, that is not the best reading of the verse. It would be better paraphrased as follows: "Just as everyone who is united to Adam dies, so everyone who is united to Christ will be made alive." In the very next verse, Paul says that it is "those who belong to Christ" who will be made alive with him (v. 23). Paul often uses the expression "in Christ" in this way, to refer to the category of human beings who are united to Christ and will be redeemed through him.