Does this sound familiar to anyone?

[MarcusOfLycia]

Let's say a man stands before a judge. He is accused of murdering someone. In fact he was caught red handed, and doesn't deny his crime. His defense is that he was unaware there was a judge and unaware there was a law against murdering someone. Based on your issue with God, should the judge let the man go free?

What kind of judge would let this man go free, a good judge or bad judge?

Right. That's a great analogy for it I think. And as far as the misconception of hell goes, I think the best description of it is eternal separation from God. What's interesting is that, while people sometimes struggle with Christianity because they don't want to face the existence of hell, they don't have problems accepting a completely meaningless universe that will effectively be hell as well (eternal death because of lack of energy for an eternal period of time).

[Canuckster1127]

At the risk of being mistaken for playing more than devil's advocate, the analogy pretty much parallels what is in the early chapter of Romans.

The issue however, is not whether God is just in condemning so far as the man is concerned for having done wrong. The issue is that that man has never heard the message of Jesus Christ, and in the absence of hearing that message and having any opportunity to repent, and receive Christ, is God Just in comdemning that man to hell?

There's many options that flow from that according to theological tradition and interpretation of the Scriptures. Some answer that absolutely with a resounding yes (Calvinism and Reformed Theology for example). Some answer that God's justice extends in that even if a person hasn't heard the Gospel, God knows their hearts and will not condemn someone to hell solely on the basis of a decision they never had the opportunity to make. Some answer that the question is moot because in the end God is going to save everyone anyway (Universalism). There's other options as well and variations on that theme.

I'm not going to attempt to solve that in this post, but I thought it was worth pointing out that the analogy offered, shows one side of God's justice in terms of the sin of man. God however is more than Justice. He is Love. Many might argue that God is primarily Love and in that context Justice falls into place and is not an opposing syncretic counter-balance as if God were at odds or in conflict with Himself.

I think both sides of the question are valid to ask and answering one with the other, doesn't adequately address all the issues.

That's just my opinion however.

[August]

As someone from the reformed/Calvinist side, I answer with a resounding "I don't know". Simply put, each individuals standing with God is between the person and God, and we may be assuming way too much as a corporate human entity about how God acts towards individuals. In reformed terms, we do not know who God's elect is, that is why we are commanded to spread the Gospel everywhere.

I know what Scripture says, I know what doctrine says and I know that many are quick to express the likelihood of specific groups of people ending up in an eternal destination, either pleasant or distinctly unpleasant. But I am not going to put myself in the impossible position of WWJD, and make judgment calls. I will continue to spread the Gospel as far and as wide as possible, and leave the difficult part up to God. I am in no position, as a sinner, to comprehend the enormity of salvation, with the love/fairness duality and apply that to billions of souls.

[Canuckster1127]

That's pretty much where I fall too August, though not necessarily from the same camp.

I don't know all the judgments of God, but I do know and trust the judge.

[jlay]

Bart, I guess my point was focusing on a specific part of Mystique's objection. Essentially, "how can a loving God send someone to Hell."
God's love would be meaningless apart from His justice, and vice versa. If we have misconceptions about either one, then there will be these types of conflict. There seems to be a very common theme that runs throughout these kinds of objections. And I find that it doesn't have to do with one's misunderstanding of God's love as much as a misunderstanding of God's wrath, justice and His hatred of sin. (Although both perceptions could certainly be in error.) Mystique also said, "I've reasoned though that this makes sense as every human life is different and God will deal with all of us differently."
That simply is not what the bible teaches. How men are judged is by his glorious standard. Rom 3:23. He isn't grading on a curve. The only difference pre-Christ would be in circumcision v. uncircumcision.
In the same way, salvation is by one means. John 14:6. I wouldn't argue that a person ignorant of Christ can't be saved. But I certainly agree with the bible that he can not be saved apart from Christ. How all that shakes out is a mystery too me.

The point I was addressing here is right out of the scripture. Rom 3:19
Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;

Obviously the person who is unaware of Christ, does have law. Either the law of Israel, or the law that Paul has already spoken of earlier in the chapter. Romans 2:12 "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law." And of course as you mentioned, Rom 1:18-20

Much like a person jumping out of an airplane. If they jump without a parachute what is the result? Did they die because they failed to put on the parachute? In one sense, yes. But ultimately they died because the law of gravity was violated. The parachute (Jesus) would have saved them, had they put it on. (Rom 13:14) But ultimately they died because they broke the law of gravity. A sinner is dead in their sins and tresspasses. An enemy of God in their mind by wicked works.

And so many people are offered the parachute (God's Love) without ever coming to understand the circumstances of the flight they are on. What this ultimately leads to is this very kind of confusion. "Love! Grace! Sounds great!" Yet the parachute is never seen as the ultimate rescue for impending doom, but merely a method of enhancing one's life. What value is a parachute for a man who doesn't think he is in any real danger? Conversely, one can be manipulated to put on the parachute through scare tactics and thus never come to truly embrace the loving nature of the parachute. Both are equally harmful, IMO.

Mystique wisely points out,

Maybe the screaming voice in the back of your (and my own) head is god forcing me to challenge my beliefs because I would otherwise never realize I don't have a relationship with him, which I have come to realize I don't.

I think that is a pretty awesomely transparent statement.

[Canuckster1127]

I understand what you're saying Jlay, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing. The thing about this is that we're speaking of a very narrow definition of people, namely those who haven't heard the gospel and who die without ever overtly being brought to a point of decision as to what to do with Jesus Christ. It's similar to the question of what God does with stillborn infants etc.

Many of your comments above appear to be addressed against universalism in the sense that it encompasses all, even those who have heard the message of Christ and reject Him.

That's a different question.

The question I understood, and maybe I'm missing something, is limited to those without Christ who have never heard the message.

If you keep it in that context, with all due respect, I think you'll see that you're addressing things outside of that with your comments above.

Either way, as you and I have engaged in areas along these lines in the past, I unapologetically say that I belive God is Love and that Justice is defined within the context of His Love, not as a counter-balance. That doesn't preclude God's Wrath or deny it, but it makes a huge difference in terms of how we relate to God and walk with him, and in that context, of course, I'm speaking of people like you and me who have accepted Christ and trusted in the gift of His salvation. I believe a focus upon the wrath of God and attempting to scare people into the kingdom of God can be an effective tool, but in the end I also believe it terribly misrepresents God as Jesus came to reveal Him. Much of evangelicalism, in my opinion, has for years lost that balance and operated with an unhealthy focus upon an angry distant God and lost sight of the Loving Father Jesus presents in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, to name just one example, there are many. In that regards, I'd say we're coming from opposite directions in terms of emphasis, not necessarily complete disagreement.

That said, I do not embrace Universalism nor do I deny that people who knowingly reject Christ face eternity separated from Christ.

I simply leave the question of God's Justice with regard to those who have never heard in God's hands and freely admit that I don't completely understand what God might do in that circumstance, but that as I trust God, I'm not particularly worried about it.

[jlay]

Many of your comments above appear to be addressed against universalism in the sense that it encompasses all, even those who have heard the message of Christ and reject Him.

That's a different question.

The question I understood, and maybe I'm missing something, is limited to those without Christ who have never heard the message.

Universalism? I didn't intend it that way. Not sure I'm following you, and maybe I haven't been clear. My comments were just to elaborate for our friend Mystique regarding why one is condemned in the first place. His misunderstanding (at least as I see it) is that it is one's ignorance of the gospel that condemns. (Those who have never heard the gospel.) Obviously I disagree, and I think the scripture teaches otherwise. Let us look at it this way. A saved person is saved from what? Ignorance or condemnation? Is their condemnation then due to ignorance? Or is it due to their own sin? So, if someone is saved, then they surely would have some idea what it is they need saving from. And thus would know that they were condemned already. (John 3:18) If the scripture says that all have sinned, and the whole world is guilty before God, then why would we then say that we don't know how God will judge? Has God not already pronounced His verdict upon all sinners, and has He not already announced His solution in Christ? Seriously, am I missing something here?
So, how can a person understand that they were deserving of condemnation even in their ignorance of Christ, yet suddenly become distressed that God would unjustly condemn some soul just because he was just ignorant? It doesn't match up to their own testimony. If we understand that we were GUILTY sinners, even if we were ignorant of the gospel, why can't we translate that to others? Like I mentioned before, I am not saying that one who is ignorant can't be saved. Obviously there is some mention to this in the scritpures, although vague. The question is regarding condemnation, not their ability to be saved.

Why is God's character suddenly at issue if ignorant people are condemned? That is a genuine question, I'd like to have some feedback on.

I believe a focus upon the wrath of God and attempting to scare people into the kingdom of God can be an effective tool, but in the end I also believe it terribly misrepresents God as Jesus came to reveal Him.

Only if we misrepresent the wrath apart from how God reveals it in the scriptures. Jesus and Paul most certainly didn't avoid the controversy, or water down the issue. And I don't say that to imply you are, only for further clarification since mystique will be reading. I think scare tactics are wrong, period. Healthy fear is a result of biblical preaching, and it is what we should emmulate. When we try to elicit fear through other means, then we are being manipulative. I mean you can't really speak about the holiness or nature of God without fear being a natural response. Is it a proper response for a guilty felon to fear the one who sits in the judges seat? Look at Isaiah 6 and John's encounter. I mean John was a born again believer, yet he was paralyzed just from the presence of Christ. Even though he was made righteous, he still collasped in fear. (Rev 1:17)Just as we can never fully comprehend His amazing grace, we also can never fully comprehend His utter abhorance of sin. And though we can't fully comprehend it, we can at least grasp it, and in fact we must. As it is our own sin that has put us at enimity with God and in need of saving to begin with.

Much of evangelicalism, in my opinion, has for years lost that balance and operated with an unhealthy focus upon an angry distant God and lost sight of the Loving Father Jesus presents in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, to name just one example, there are many.

I certainly see that element, but I don't see it being the mainstream, or the overwhelming trend. I see easy-believism as much more prevelent. Sinner's prayer, ABCs of Christianity, etc.
The problem I see with preaching love as a focus of evangelism is because the carnal mind does not understand God's love. (Romans 8:7)Heck, I'm certain Christians with good intentions mix in their own ideas of love. But, God's love is best demonstrated in the cross. (Rom 5:8)Hardly what the carnal mind would describe as affection or loving. And thus the preaching of the cross (God's love demonstrated) is foolishenss to them. (1 Cor 1:18) A very interesting theme pervades the NT. Grace to the humble, resistance to the proud. (1 Pet 5:5) It is a very interesting study to see how grace is extended in the scriptures. If one is broken, contrite, and sensative to their own spiritual condition, then they are ready to be shown how the loving hand of grace has already been extended. Christ didn't come along and bash people who were already broken and aware of their need. He did however treat people very differently when they were in error, or worse stubbornly proud. It is when one is shaken, that they can see their spiritual condition, and come to see a need for saving. Obviously as believers, we are free of judgment and made righteous in His sight. So, yes in our own conversations, it is love that is the driving force. Love should always be the motive in evangelism. But is it the primary message? Obviously it all depends on how you are presenting that 'love' to the lost person. Are they ready for the cure? Are they aware they are diseased and terminal? Are they wanting rescue? If not, it is equivalent to offering a life preserver to a person who is on dry land, oblivous that the flood is coming. So as far as love goes, I am all for it. As long as it follows the biblical model of love, and not an altered version. This is probably where you and I differ, and is why we strongly disagreed on The Shack. In that novel viewed love as being subtly altered to better appeal to the senses of men. It is my strong opinion that that kind of love draws people because it speaks more to the emptiness of one's life, selfish longings, yet fails to rightly capture one's own spirtitual depravity and need of saving. I don't say that to start another discussion on that book, only to clarify for the reader. As you also pointed out, we've had differences in the past on this topic, and I think this is probably one of the core issues we differ on.

Regarding the prodigal, many don't even see that as a salvation parable. A son, is a son, even if he is wayward. Very much a Kingdom parable for wayward Israel, although it may have broader teaching applications that comply with the overall central message.

[StMonicaGuideMe]

I went to university (secular) and proceeded to read and all of my studies strengthened my faith (biology major, studied evolution as well). Difference is, I would be willing to bet, is how willing one is to study ALL things in the same critical eye. How willing were you to critically examine everything that was presented to you? It seems that in your story, all one has to do to give up on CHristianity is to simply be spoon-fed other philosophies and accept them as truth.

I would say that your knowledge of Christ, the Bible, and apologetics was sufficiently weak that being spoon fed other worldviews was enough.

Bang on. That is the only reason so many "laymen" fall away. They simply do not have sufficient understanding of the multiple subjects it takes, and couldn't be bothered to try. It's easier to listen to the sensationalist arguments of fallen-away Christians. Bah.

[Murray]

why is it these people never stay to debate.........

how is posting something then not defending it work for people???

At least argue a bit, we all got a bit of fight in us, perhaps you are suppressing your debate "reasoning" or something.... Nothing wrong with a good healthy debate