Faith and works

[Kurieuo]

And re: "Thy will be done," I appreciate the statement. I've used it myself. C. S. Lewis is, obviously, an influential writer. But, frankly, I don't believe that anymore. God's will is always done. And besides, He is merciful, don't you think? When your friends rise from the dead and they look upon God, when they see the purity of His goodness, they will have nothing but a longing for Him and a very, very, very deep shame at their sin. The only reason even in this life that people are not ashamed of their sin is because they hide from the Light. But when they stand in that Light for all of its spendor, they will see clearly, not as through a glass. And in that moment, do you think they would will to hate God? No, they will long for Him, despite their shame. And God can, in that moment, choose to forgive them (again), by the Cross, of course, and wipe away those tears and usher His prodigal children into eternal bliss, or He can wag His finger at them and tell them that they didn't do good enough for heaven after all . . . and why? Because in this life, they were blinded by the enemy and rejected their Savior. (All that, by the way, is why the "divine rape" argument fails; besides, I hope you can see how terrible crass and unchariable it is to compare Divine Mercy and Love with rape. Grace is about the happiness and goodness of its object. Rape is about using its object for its own perverse satisfaction, and to accuse God of the latter strikes me as unbecoming at the least, to put it charitably!)

No, in that moment, they will not will Hell. The question is what God will will, and I believe that He wil will their salvation, and I believe that because He has already done so. And God is not a God who changes His mind . . . as if He realized He somehow made a mistake . . .

I know you do not support Universalism, but re-reading and following your logic here really appears to be in the same vein of those who believe in Universal Salvation.

At some point, all us non-Universalists believe that God draws the line BECAUSE He respects our freedom and does not want to force Himself on us.
God greatly respects our freedom to deny Him, and is overjoyed and loves it we respond to His drawing in and love Him back.
There is a reason why an all-good and all-powerful God has His hands tied when it comes to our decision to be evil and bury Him.

To quote Craig who indirectly started this thread:

• Therefore, we must cast ourselves on God's mercy. Even though we are guilty and deserve to die, God still loves us. Sometimes people get the idea that God is a sort of cosmic tyrant up there, out to get us. But this isn't the Christian understanding of God. Listen to what the Bible says, "'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'" (Ez. 18.23,32; 33.11).
  
  Here God literally pleads with people to turn back from their self-destructive course of action and be saved. And in the New Testament it says, "The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance" (2Pet. 3.9). "He desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1Tim. 2.4).

The issue is precisely that God will not impose His will upon us.
You are correct. It is about "God's will" and God's will is that everyone freely chooses and seeks Him.
Which is why God is forever trying to draw us back to Him. It is the only way love can be true -- if love is a free decision.
If it were simply about "God's will" devoid of our free decision, then ALL would be saved -- Universal Salvation is true.

I do not agree with Craig on every point and certainly find some words extreme in the original post here.
But, B.W. is also quite insightful I think, with his observation that Craig is talking to a Muslim.
AND, if you know Muslims, they have very strict thinking with the way one ought to conduct themselves -- such that "grace" has as much sense as calling black white.
So possibly, Craig is adapting his apologetic here -- focusing more on Peter's apparent works-based theology, rather than Paul's more grace-filled theology. Perhaps Craig oversteps the mark (which I do tend to feel)...
HOWEVER, given Craig is very well read and versed in Christian theology, and he has done much to tare down many obstacles to a knowledge of God, I'm going to give Craig the benefit of doubt... in the very least I'd like to hear a rejoinder from Craig before running to castigate him over a works-based theology in an apologetic response to a Muslim.

[Jac3510]

At some point, all us non-Universalists believe that God draws the line BECAUSE He respects our freedom and does not want to force Himself on us.

I don't have time to respond, but I'll just say that I don't agree with this. I think that we've deeply misunderstood what Hell is about. The popular view that you're backing paints God as helpless before our all powerful free will. He would just LOVE to save us, if only we would let Him! But alas, to do so "against our will" would be rape, and God could never do that. It would be against His nature. So God really has met something that is too powerful for His nature to overcome. God is not all powerful after all. He can't save everyone, no matter how bad He wants to. No, we've managed to frustrate His plans!

I know you wouldn't put it that way. You feel that's an unfair representation of your position. You say that God's plan is to let people choose. I get that. But it gets you to the same place. And you would also charge that the only alternative is a Calvinistic style determinism in which God monstrously just chooses to send people to Hell because He wants them to go there, presumable for His own glory.

But as with all things Calvinist and the reactionism against it that it tends to create, both the position and its response are unfounded. The Calvinist influenced among us make God a monster, and the anti-Calvinist position makes God a weakling. There is another position. It's the position that the church pretty much always held. But that's a debate about the nature of Hell, and I just don't have time to get into all that right now. So for now, I'll only quote you further here and notice what I underline:

God greatly respects our freedom to deny Him, and is overjoyed and loves it we respond to His drawing in and love Him back.
There is a reason why an all-good and all-powerful God has His hands tied when it comes to our decision to be evil and bury Him.

To quote Craig who indirectly started this thread:

• Therefore, we must cast ourselves on God's mercy. Even though we are guilty and deserve to die, God still loves us. Sometimes people get the idea that God is a sort of cosmic tyrant up there, out to get us. But this isn't the Christian understanding of God. Listen to what the Bible says, "'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'" (Ez. 18.23,32; 33.11).
  
  Here God literally pleads with people to turn back from their self-destructive course of action and be saved. And in the New Testament it says, "The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance" (2Pet. 3.9). "He desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1Tim. 2.4).

The issue is precisely that God will not impose His will upon us.
You are correct. It is about "God's will" and God's will is that everyone freely chooses and seeks Him.
Which is why God is forever trying to draw us back to Him. It is the only way love can be true -- if love is a free decision.
If it were simply about "God's will" devoid of our free decision, then ALL would be saved -- Universal Salvation is true.

I do not agree with Craig on every point and certainly find some words extreme in the original post here.
But, B.W. is also quite insightful I think, with his observation that Craig is talking to a Muslim.
AND, if you know Muslims, they have very strict thinking with the way one ought to conduct themselves -- such that "grace" has as much sense as calling black white.
So possibly, Craig is adapting his apologetic here -- focusing more on Peter's apparent works-based theology, rather than Paul's more grace-filled theology. Perhaps Craig oversteps the mark (which I do tend to feel)...
HOWEVER, given Craig is very well read and versed in Christian theology, and he has done much to tare down many obstacles to a knowledge of God, I'm going to give Craig the benefit of doubt... in the very least I'd like to hear a rejoinder from Craig before running to castigate him over a works-based theology in an apologetic response to a Muslim.

Step back and just look for a second at how that language denies God's sovereignty. It makes us sovereign. And claiming that it is God's sovereign choice to make us sovereign doesn't get you out of the conundrum. Obviously, at this point, we are right back at the sovereignty-free will argument, but I've said a million times that any solution that denies EITHER truth is wrong, no matter how well intentioned. And to deny God's sovereignty, which the popular position on this does--having God, say to us "Thy will be done"--is to say something about God that is not true. If we are to be true to Scripture, we have to affirm BOTH positions. And talking about God's hands being "tied" doesn't do both.

So, again, no, God does not draw a line out of respect for our freedom. Still less would it be rape to give us what we truly want, even if we, in our stupidity, cannot see in the present moment what we truly want. I would strongly encourage you to drop that analogy from your repertoire of arguments. I mean, honestly . . . to accuse God of something as heinous as rape . . . I would caution you be much more careful with your language. After all, if you turn out to be wrong, I don't know that it is terribly wise to make it a habit of calling God a rapist! And besides, it's just not charitable. There are a LOT of believers who are very well informed in theological and philosophical matters and who have spent entire lifetimes thinking through their positions and have concluded that no one can ever lose their salvation (so the OSAS crowd). To accuse THEM of making God a rapist . . . I mean, really . . . I don't take offense. I understand the nature of these discussions. But do you really think that's helpful? To say that I believe God is a rapist? Or can you concede that's more hurtful and more akin to a cheap rhetorical shot than an honest engagement with what people like me actually believe?

Okay. Back to work!

Seriously, though -- no hard feelings on my end. Sorry I don't have time to offer a substantive reply on the nature of Hell and especially on the nature of the will in relation to the good and the intellect's role in all that, and all that in view of Divine Justice.

[Kurieuo]

Jac, really just one question. How do you avoid Universal Salvation vis-a-vis God's Sovereignty?

[Jac3510]

Very short answer: because God positively wills some people go to Hell. Cf. Matt 7:21-23. Those people certainly don't seem like they hated Christ and that for Him to accept them would be "rape" . . . No, Jesus condemned them to a place they didn't want to go. He willed they go to Hell. Like I said, that would require a deeper discussion on the nature of Hell. But I hope you can concede that is a serious matter of debate, even among Bible-believing, faithful Christians. Suffice it to say, I am not a Calvinist on this matter. There is (at least) a third option.

edit:

Not trying to beat a dead horse (though I acknowledge I'm doing just that!), but the DS argument actually plays into this. I'm writing the chapter right now that deals with theological objections, and one of those has to do with the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's free will. I don't think for one second that I can fully explain that problem, much less to everyone's satisfaction, but I do think that the outlines of what I am writing is very informative as to how I would approach this question. I expect I'll have that section done, at least in rough draft format, by this weekend (right now, I am writing the section on God and time; then on God's relation to the world; then on God's immutability; and then on the sovereignty-free will question). If people are still interested here, I'll post that section when I'm finished with it. In the meantime, you can get a preview of what I would say in pp. 116-21 of my thesis.

[Kurieuo]

You earlier said:

And you would also charge that the only alternative is a Calvinistic style determinism in which God monstrously just chooses to send people to Hell because He wants them to go there, presumable for His own glory.

And now you write:

Very short answer: because God positively wills some people go to Hell.... Jesus condemned them to a place they didn't want to go. He willed they go to Hell.

So without your extended explanation, it seems you very much align yourself with a Calvinistic style of determinism.

Perhaps you take a neo-Calvinist position, that is open to many other Cavlinists, to avoid making God a monster for His own sovereign glory?

[Kurieuo]

Two other things to quickly comment on:

1)

You say that God's plan is to let people choose. I get that. But it gets you to the same place. And you would also charge that the only alternative is a Calvinistic style determinism in which God monstrously just chooses to send people to Hell because He wants them to go there, presumable for His own glory.

But as with all things Calvinist and the reactionism against it that it tends to create, both the position and its response are unfounded. The Calvinist influenced among us make God a monster, and the anti-Calvinist position makes God a weakling.

I will simply that I am not Calvinist here.
Nor am I Arminian, often seen as the opposite.
Rather as you might recall, I am Molinist -- there is no contradiction between God's predestining us and our free will.

2)

The popular view that you're backing paints God as helpless before our all powerful free will. He would just LOVE to save us, if only we would let Him! But alas, to do so "against our will" would be rape, and God could never do that. It would be against His nature. So God really has met something that is too powerful for His nature to overcome. God is not all powerful after all. He can't save everyone, no matter how bad He wants to. No, we've managed to frustrate His plans!

There is no issue with God's sovereignty and our free will, if it is God's sovereign will that we love and as such freely choose Him.
There is no more an issue with this than saying because God cannot do evil, He is not sovereign. Goodness is part of God's nature.
Therefore God's sovereign omnipotence only entails that God can do all that He wants to do in accordance with His nature.

If God willed to have robots rather than free beings to share in His love, then God could have willed such.
But, God did not want that -- at least as far as the Scripture reveals to us.

There are no issues at all between God's will, His sovereignty and our freedom to choose and love Him back.
You'll need to define a tightly sound argument if you believe otherwise, but I think you'll be very hard-pressed to come up with one.

Furthermore, it still seems your argument if it were sound could equally be made in favour of Universal Salvation.
Why should God not just WILL ALL to be saved if such is within His sovereign power.
Indeed, if God can and He doesn't, then one should question whether God is onmi-benevolent and truly loves us all.

[Jac3510]

The argument isn't particularly hard to make. I just don't have time to make it here. As I said, I'm not a Calvinist, nor am I a Molinist. In the final analysis, Molinism either necessarily denies free will, which I know you don't think is the case, but it does. Sorry for the blunt assertions. I don't expect you to be persuaded by it. I'm just informing you as to the result of my own study.

Anyway, either Molinism necessarily either denies free will or else it denies God's sovereignty by making God's choice depended on man. Once again, that's a bald assertion that I'm not trying to back up here. Perhaps another time. Regardless, the point is that you don't to define away the problem by saying God has sovereignly chosen to not be sovereign. That's just a self-contradiction, and I dressing up a self-contradiction in theological garb doesn't change that. I would add in addition to all of this that I don't think you are properly defining God's "goodness." Something tells me that you are seeing it in a Platonic sense, as something extrinsic to God that He somehow manifests. Yes, you'll say that He does so necessarily and claim the standard response to Euthyphro--that God just is goodness. But all of your language betrays a Platonic view in which goodness is a property that God has. After all, you say that it is a part of His nature. Anyway, if you really want to be able to respond to Euthyphro as we always have, you have to affirm DS, which means you have to say that Good is identical to Being Itself, which means that there is very literally nothing (because nothing is the absence of being, so as you know it is self-contradictory to say that nothing exists) to compare God's actions to to call them good or evil. God just is what He does, and since God is Good, then all of God's actions are Good, not by comparison (where goodness is predicated to God's actions) but by nature (where Goodness is identical to God's act). And that includes sending people to Hell.

Anyway, far too much to say here and not NEARLY enough time. The point is merely that the argument is there to be made. It is neither Calvinist nor Arminian, but your insistence on pitting God's sovereignty against our free will shows what I see to be a basic false dichotomy that underlies pretty much all of modern theology. And the self-contradiction is manifest in your saying, "It is God's sovereign will that we freely choose Him," where "freely" is understood in opposition to God's willing. Your argument boils down to: God wills everything; therefore, God wills that we will Him; but God wills that we will Him without Him willing we will Him; therefore, we will God without Him willing us to will Him.

The contradiction is glaringly obvious, at least to me!

[Jac3510]

The VERY short answer, by the way, to the sovereignty/free-will debate is this:

God wills EVERYTHING in accordance with its nature. Thus He wills determinate things to happen in a determined fashion and indeterminate things to happen in an indeterminate fashion. Thus, He is literally and necessarily the cause of our free choice.

What you are essentially doing is denying that God is the cause of our choice. Therefore, God is not the First Cause after all, and that means that God is not God. For further, that means that man's choices are made independently of God. You hide that by saying that it was God's sovereign will that our choices be independent of Him, but that is still both self-contradictory as well as a flat denial of God's sovereignty.

And lastly, even if I did NOT have an answer to the dilemma (and I think I do), that would not mean that my critique of your answer was any less sound. I don't have to know the right answer in order to see what is wrong in another answer. I can know that 2+2 does not equal 5 even if I don't know that 2+2=4.

[Kurieuo]

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't becoming confused by your beliefs Jac.
You appear to be advocating a form of Divine Determinism: affirming that God is the cause of our choice?
If so then I can't accept that.

Sure, God provides the platform if you will, on which we can carry out actions and thereby sustains our choices.
BUT, I'd flat out reject that God is the cause of our choices (which contradicts what I read in Scripture), and would also reject that our choices are independent of God (since He sustains all that came into existence).

I'm just becoming more and more puzzled by your views and down right confused.
I never expected to read some of the things that you've written here.

Obviously, there is only so much you can fit into a short response, so maybe one day you'll have a chance to elaborate further in future discussions.

[Mallz]

I've got a couple statements and questions.

Jac

[Jesus] said that whoever believes has (present tense!) everlasting life.

I don't view 'believe' as being restricted to a temporal event. Those who are Gods are known to Him before the 'foundations of the world'. And I'm not preaching predestination, but expressing the middle knowledge of God in action. Those who are saved, were saved before they existed. We do have self-determination and are made with the ability to either agree with objective morality, or create our own. Of course God wants all to come to Him to be saved, but it is our choice to reject Him or desire to live with Him. Which I think explains Hell easily. Those who reject God, God lets them and are separated from Him, aka Hell.

And if my friend could lose his everlasting life by his apostasy, then it would seem to me that the life he had was not everlasting. In fact, I would say that it is a contradiction in terms to say that a person "had" (past tense) everlasting life, just as much as it is a contradiction in terms to speak of a four-sided triangle.

I don't think we can determine who is saved and who is not. And I don't think we are supposed to as it changes our attitudes and dealings with others. I don't believe in the 'quick questions' to find out if one is 'truly a believer'. As only God can know our hearts, only He can discern this. We all have hope and live with hope. I have assurance in my own salvation and people can have assurance in their own salvation. And I can agree that when person X says they affirm they are saved and give all the reasons needed for it, I can agree with them. But I don't know if they are saved. I don't know if they are confessing with their lips but rejecting with their heart. And just because someone dies in a perceived apostasy, we can't say they aren't saved. We don't know their last thoughts or what their heart is truly saying.

And that, by the way, is what bothers me so much about this whole question. It seems to suggest that Jesus didn't really pay the price for ALL sin-...

He did pay for the price of all sin, I agree with you there. But this line of thinking doesn't connect with my understanding of the current subject. Jesus died for us all and we are already forgiven if we believe, right? (If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9) But we can choose not to believe in Jesus. And throw away his gift of salvation by rejecting his cross. Rejecting His salvation.

Kureriu
If God were present and made Himself known, then none of us would be truly free to deny Him.
PaulS
Is one that people seem to overlook a lot when they ask why God doesn't make Himself more evident ( ie: come into this world so that NONE can deny that He exists).

I agree with part of what you two are saying. However, people would still deny Him if He was present in this world. For Gods purpose for us, and I'd argue for the existence of every self-determining beings, He was present for the angels, and not present for us. And there's a lot to say in there but I'll leave it at that for now.


Jac

He would just LOVE to save us, if only we would let Him! But alas, to do so "against our will" would be rape, and God could never do that. It would be against His nature. So God really has met something that is too powerful for His nature to overcome. God is not all powerful after all. He can't save everyone, no matter how bad He wants to. No, we've managed to frustrate His plans!

Isn't it against Gods nature to create circular triangles, or ones inside/outside 180 degrees?

I don't see the rape scenario being a reality here. If our will is against Gods, then we wont come to Him nor be with Him even though He wants us to. How is that not a present reality for humanity and angels?

Kurieuo

Maybe I'm the only one seeing it this way. There are many bright people here to give me pause.
But, there just seems to be something odd going on in a picture where one in unable to reject Christ after having once believed.

I see it too. Which is why i do think of the only other self-determinate beings we know of existing, the angels and demons. I think there is good evidence to believe that angels existed consciously before falling. If that is the case, they knew and believed in Jesus as they knew Him as The Word. More encompassing, they believed in El-Shaddai, all one of Him, and chose to reject Him. This is just one angle of my reasoning among others. I see 'one is unable to reject Christ after having once believed' a contradiction and obviously false. And I still haven't come across any reasoning that breaks mine down to be false.

And anyone who does would be doing me a great favor.

[Kurieuo]

I would add in addition to all of this that I don't think you are properly defining God's "goodness." Something tells me that you are seeing it in a Platonic sense, as something extrinsic to God that He somehow manifests. Yes, you'll say that He does so necessarily and claim the standard response to Euthyphro--that God just is goodness. But all of your language betrays a Platonic view in which goodness is a property that God has. After all, you say that it is a part of His nature. Anyway, if you really want to be able to respond to Euthyphro as we always have, you have to affirm DS, which means you have to say that Good is identical to Being Itself, which means that there is very literally nothing (because nothing is the absence of being, so as you know it is self-contradictory to say that nothing exists) to compare God's actions to to call them good or evil. God just is what He does, and since God is Good, then all of God's actions are Good, not by comparison (where goodness is predicated to God's actions) but by nature (where Goodness is identical to God's act). And that includes sending people to Hell.

Granted, I was rather loose with my words, but we often anthropomorphise God in human terms.

Talking of God as substance and parts is defining God in terms found in materialistic framework.
It is something with which we are familiar. So when I say goodness is part of God, really I mean it is rooted in God's existence.
And not even that is good enough because I've said "in" as though it is something found inside of God's substance.
Obviously analogous since God is immaterial.

I do not have another language with which to talk in terms of God's existence and His attributes.
For example, talking in terms of "pure act" such that God is pure being and existence itself.

It sounds nice, but I'm not sure what that even looks like conceptually. I can't conceive of it.
And I dare say many DS proponents can't either. To conceive of such is for us to see a substance-property view of sorts which DS rejects.
So I'll just defer therefore to God is who He is -- the great I AM.

Definitely, I'm open to another perspective and language construct with which to talk of God within.
There are limits to a substance-property view as we are familiar with in the material world.
I just have not read enough to know how to use such language with a proper understanding.
Hopefully your paper here will be beneficial to clarifying.

BUT, definitely reject "goodness" as something separate -- rather pure goodness is rooted in God's very nature.
It's precisely this that opens me up to hearing more of DS, considering it more seriously.
Something I should have explored long ago when my Catholic philosophy lecturer said with the best intentions that I shouldn't so readily dismiss it.

[Jac3510]

Of course God is the cause of our choice, K. He is the cause of EVERYTHING. If you really deny that, you are literally saying that there are some things that are uncaused. What I am NOT saying is that in causing our choices, God chooses what we will choose. That's why I said before the self-contradiction exists if and when you define God's sovereign will in opposition to what we choose.

I'm not trying to confuse, but I know it is. The definition and nature of terms like "freedom" and "will" are different than they were five years ago. The ones I used to hold were modernistic notions born out of Cartesian philosophy and the so-called Enlightenment. That's where the contradiction comes from. If you look at them the way the Church historically has, the contradiction goes away. Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia articles on those terms (at NewAdvent.org), and, again, I refer you back to the relevant pages on my thesis I linked above.

I'll say something in more detail about all this later. I am finally getting on something of a role on the DS book (or, at least, I'm on one for now!) and I hope to make a lot of progress in a short period of time. Not trying to be coy here. I promise!

And Mallz,

On the salvation issue, read this article by Zane Hodges. That would go a long way in answering your questions. I don't think every single point he makes is exactly right, but he gives the right perspective in general. And it is very accessible. There's also a helpful Youtube lecture he gave you can find by googling the paper title, too.

[PaulSacramento]

The bible is a collection of interesting books, that's for sure, and they CAN lead us to "contradictory" view of salvation IF we decide to be dogmatic about one or two verses.
EX:
Only those that appear in the book of life will be saved.
Only those predestined by God will be saved.

The point being that focusing on verses that lend weight to a view we agree with leads us down the road that lead Calvin to what we call "Calvinism".

The only way for all to reconcile free will and the sovereignty of God's will is to agree on WHAT both mean and we know that theologians over the centuries have NOT done that ( and I doubt they ever will).

It is important of us in the midst of these discussion to realize that NO ONE here KNOWS for sure and we are only speculating and "opinionating" and that no one here is right or wrong but at best "partially right" and "partially wrong" and that is why ONLY God decides ( Thank the Lord for that).

There is a reason we have so varied doctrines and even ones that appear contradictory at times ( salvation based on belief only, people who believe are predestined to believe, people are free to reject God, people have free will, God's will is sovereign, etc...) and that is because the bible CAN be used to justify all of them depending on how we choose to interpret key passages and whether we reconcile them with others or not.

We need to remain humble and always remember we are simply stating our opinion, no more, no less.

[jlay]

On the salvation issue, read this article by Zane Hodges. That would go a long way in answering your questions. I don't think every single point he makes is exactly right, but he gives the right perspective in general. And it is very accessible. There's also a helpful Youtube lecture he gave you can find by googling the paper title, too.

Jac, enjoying the article from Hodges. The only area I've been unable to reconcile this view in my personal study is when Jesus states, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8:24)
In this case Jesus clearly states that due to their unbelief, their sin remains.

[PaulSacramento]

On the salvation issue, read this article by Zane Hodges. That would go a long way in answering your questions. I don't think every single point he makes is exactly right, but he gives the right perspective in general. And it is very accessible. There's also a helpful Youtube lecture he gave you can find by googling the paper title, too.

Jac, enjoying the article from Hodges. The only area I've been unable to reconcile this view in my personal study is when Jesus states, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8:24)
In this case Jesus clearly states that due to their unbelief, their sin remains.

It seems to me that the article is stating that Christ paid for mortal sin, the sin that keeps us away from God.
However, that only works in terms of salvation, for those that believe in HIM. Those that do not STILL have their sin paid for BUT the consequences of their actions, they will have to "reap what they sow" in Hell.

It seems to echo John 5 where believers are exempt from judgment and those that do not believe are judged based on their works, which also tends to imply that they will not be saved because no amount of works is good enough ( hence the benefit to believe in Christ).

So, in short ( If I am getting the jist of this right):
Christ paid for the sins of ALL so ALL are reconciled to God.
People are still under the consequences of their actions however - reap what you sow.
Those who believe in Christ are free of judgment and are saved.
Those that do not are judged and shall "reap what they sow" in Hell.

Yes?