Are you a sincere seeker who has questions about Christianity, or a Christian with doubts about your faith? Post them here to receive a thoughtful response.
Judah wrote:I am uncomfortable about this view, despite being a fan of Lewis.
Salvation is by grace through faith, not through works. Faith in whom? Surely the whom needs to be named, especially when the Gospel has been presented and the Whom does indeed have a name? I think this idea that Lewis presents is very much like standing on thin ice.
The ice is thin, but if deftly danced upon, supports.
Lewis's main error was that he confused justification with sanctification. In his efforts to stress that salvation was a process (which it is), he didn't distinguish between those two.
However, I find Lewis's thought to be compatible with Calvinism. We aren't saved by our works; Lewis only said that people from other religions might be drawn to the 'Christian part' in other religions. So I think (whatever Lewis meant) that God will accept the good works of some people of other religions in the same way that He accepts those of born-again Christians: because He has elected them and made them seek Him.
The Bible says they were "willingly ignorant". In the Greek, this means "be dumb on purpose". (Kent Hovind)
Yes Turgy, I am inclined to agree with you.
I had also said...
I am quite convinced in my belief regarding John 14:6 yet it has not escaped me that I am not the one to define the exact mechanics of "except through me". My understanding is finite - His is infinte.
The ice is very thin, and maybe dancing (even deft dancing) could cause it to collapse, but being drawn by Him and the extent of the move towards Him, is always a matter of God's judgement rather than my own. Thin ice may provide support if stood upon very carefully.
Therefore I cannot say, for instance, that the Calorman Emeth would or would not be claimed by Him - but I believe it is certainly possible.
Whilst I am convinced by the words of Jesus in John 14:6, I cannot say anyone is not saved just because they do not have this formal Biblical knowledge of Him. There may be other ways to know and accept Him, not knowing Him Biblically but knowing Him in one's heart through His drawing of one to Himself.
When it comes to salvation, that is a matter for God to judge. Only He knows what is in our hearts. And in this matter God is supremely just and merciful.
I don't think Emeth has a chance of being claimed by God. But maybe that's a topic for another thread, 'Can Fictional Characters Reach Heaven?'
But I agree with what you say. Although the biblical basis is very thin (though it could be said to exist), one could refer to Revelation 5:7, which says that people from every tribe, every language, every nation will be in heaven. Unless this is poetic hyperbole, it includes Babylonians, Assyrians, Syrians (Naaman!), Chaldeans, etc.
The Bible says they were "willingly ignorant". In the Greek, this means "be dumb on purpose". (Kent Hovind)
Turgonian wrote:I don't think Emeth has a chance of being claimed by God. But maybe that's a topic for another thread, 'Can Fictional Characters Reach Heaven?'
Judah wrote:Whilst I am convinced by the words of Jesus in John 14:6, I cannot say anyone is not saved just because they do not have this formal Biblical knowledge of Him. There may be other ways to know and accept Him, not knowing Him Biblically but knowing Him in one's heart through His drawing of one to Himself.
When it comes to salvation, that is a matter for God to judge. Only He knows what is in our hearts. And in this matter God is supremely just and merciful.
But the ice is indeed thin.
...I just want to add that I also distance myself from the heresy of Pluralism (a la John Hicks) which has it that Christ is one among many valid pathways to God, but not the only pathway. Faithful Buddhists, for example, are saved through Buddha (not Christ vicariously mediated through Buddhism).
That is not what I am talking about, but that is indeed the danger underneath the "thin ice" here.
Judah wrote:...I just want to add that I also distance myself from the heresy of Pluralism (a la John Hicks)...
Don't we all...
I got more reactions. I'd like your input, Judah.
TJ wrote:Turgonian,
You have thoroughly confused the issue of God's decree with the issue of conversion. Yes, God has decreed salvation for the elect. He has also decreed the means to that end, namely, faith in Jesus Christ as revealed in the gospel. This necessitates gospel preaching and witness, without which men do not even know that which they must believe.
Follow closely the chain of necessities in Romans 10:9-15.
1. Men must "call on the name of the Lord" to be saved.
2. Men must believe on Christ to call on His name and be saved.
3. Men must know of Christ to believe on Him, to call on Him, and to be saved.
4. Christians must preach the gospel to men so that they may know, believe, call, and be saved.
5. Churches must send preachers out into the world to preach Christ to men who otherwise will never know of, believe in, or call on Christ, and thus cannot be saved.
Paul makes this argument in the midst of the strongest argument for God's sovereign decree of salvation found anywhere in Scripture. He understands that God, who decrees the salvation of some, has also decreed their faith in the gospel of Christ, as well as the preaching of that gospel to them, as the means for their salvation. This is why it is unnecessary to speculate - the apostle carried along by the Spirit, foresaw the question and answered it.
What you have done on this thread is this:
1. You have ignored the biblical teaching on conversion and its necessity (such as that cited in Romans 10.)
2. You have then speculated on things answered in the Word of God.
3. You have quite inevitably arrived at an unbiblical conclusion: that men need not even hear the gospel of Christ to be saved.
4. You have thrown the door wide open to that branch of error which is historically designated as "hyper-Calvinism." If men need not hear the gospel to be saved, the church need not worry itself with evangelism. I think you have perhaps avoided this error yourself, but you have embraced the exact line of extra-biblical reasoning which has always led to hyper-Calvinism.
Speculation is the highway to Error. It is always better to search the Scriptures more deeply and see whether an answer has already been given. If the question is worth asking, you will always find that the Bible addresses it.
Larry F. wrote:"I was saying, 'I believe God sometimes grants grace to persons who do not have full knowledge of God."
What do you mean by 'full knowledge of God'? I know of no one who has 'full knowledge of God' no matter how many years he or she has been a believer.
I think what you're really saying is you believe God saves some people outside of faith in Jesus Christ. I think its time for some scripture now, not your personal opinions. Please share your Biblical support for the notion that God saves some people apart from faith in Jesus Christ. Please cite only those scriptures supporting that fully congnizant adults can be saved in this way (this is after all what we're REALLY talking about here, not infants.)
The Bible says they were "willingly ignorant". In the Greek, this means "be dumb on purpose". (Kent Hovind)
Hmm, do I detect the slightest aroma of a certain kind of legalism in all of this? Well, here are a few of my thoughts for what they are worth.
I know you as Turgy. That is the name that grabs your attention and to which you respond. You know that I mean you when I use that name. However, it is quite possibly not the name your parents gave you. I don't know, of course, but you may be Willem or Pieter or Hans or Lars or Joris. Unless I am told, I can only guess and will not otherwise know. But to me you are Turgy, and what is more important is the person you reveal yourself to be in your interactions with me and others on this board. I am able to get to know that person, little by little, as we keep talking with each other here.
It may be that I have spent my life living in a remote part of the world where I have never heard the name of Jesus. Neither technology nor missionaries have infiltrated my part of the jungle, and I am illiterate too. However, something has spoken to me in my heart of hearts - or rather, Someone has spoken to me. I am spiritually aware of a sense of being, a Being whom I hazily construct in my mind as a "sinless person" who leads me to all that is good, all that is great, who is worthy of my utmost devotion and whom I have come to regard as my saviour from what is evil in my world and in me.
My hazy comprehension of this person is just a tiny seed of Truth, not anywhere near as complete as it would be had I heard the Gospel - but should I hear the Gospel I would immediately recognize that this Jesus and my person (by whatever name I call Him) are one and the same.
Do I know Jesus - or don't I? Does the name matter more, or the characteristics of the person? Is Turgy and the person called by your real name the one same person? You also represent yourself here on this board as a centaur, but appearances are clearly deceptive. We all "see but a poor reflection as in a mirror" and our comprehension of God is far from complete this side of heaven. 1 Corinthians 13:12.
However, should I hear the Gospel and not recognize Jesus, choosing to keep my own conception of whoever I have as the deity in my life, then I may rightfully be charged with idolatry and my soul is in mortal danger.
Yes, I can hear the arguments mounting already! Does that mean it is better not to go and preach the Gospel, that by not doing so we will save folk from their own possibly bad decisions? Of course not. We must be obedient as followers of Christ. And there is no sweeter joy than meeting Jesus, something we must not deny another if we truly love our neighbour.
I have often mused on the fact that our innate perceptual abilities will differ from person to person - some being naturally more perceptive than others - and at what point on a continuum of spiritual clarity do we consider that all notions of God in one direction are true, and in the other direction, are idolatrous. Maybe, because we cannot know God fully, they are all idolatrous. (Larry F. wrote "I know of no one who has 'full knowledge of God' no matter how many years he or she has been a believer." and I would agree with him). We keep modifying our personal experience and knowledge of Him by Bible study, prayer, debate, etc - but even so, we cannot know Him fully and completely while in our earthly bodies. Instead, we trust in His merciful understanding of our capabilities, and in His infinite justice which is more just than our wildest dreams of it can be.
Turgy, are you doing as Larry F. suggests you are - saying that you believe God saves some people outside of faith in Jesus Christ? I don't believe God does that. What I am saying is that to avoid the heresy of pluralism, we must accept that salvation is only through faith in Jesus Christ. But it is the mechanics of how that works that is the issue.
Our perception of Jesus will vary from person to person, depending on our knowledge of, and relationship with, Him. Although - as yet unreached in my remote jungle village - if I have never heard the name of Jesus, I may still know Him the person in my heart of hearts, a hazy glimmer of the Truth whom I will recognize instantly when I see Him face to face and know Him as my Lord and Saviour, who has always been my Lord and Saviour. He appeared dramatically to Saul of Tarsus on the Road to Damascus, and who is to say that He does not appear in some way in the hearts of those who have not heard the Gospel, and that they recognize Him anyway?
I still believe firmly in John 14:6 but I am not so legalistic to say that, unless your perception of Him is exactly the same as what is written in the Bible that you have never had the benefit of reading, you cannot be saved by the grace of God through faith in Him, Jesus.
Can a person be saved without faith in Jesus? Am I saying that? I did say that, yes, because I believe infants (at least believers' infants, and possibly all of them -- but that, again, would be speculation) are saved. David's child was saved, and he was 10 days old. Did he have faith in Jesus? I don't think babies have 'faith' in anything or anyone. They do not have 'faith', at 10 days old, that their mother will feed them when they start crying; they cry intuitively.
However, it might very well be as you say, that God reaches out to non-evangelized, mentally developed people with a concept of the Truth, the Word that became Flesh. A very helpful insight!
The Bible says they were "willingly ignorant". In the Greek, this means "be dumb on purpose". (Kent Hovind)
