Bruce

Bruce

You said, “Saint and Sinner, I agree with your assessment of Paul and his audience, but he is talking about what happened to CERTAIN of them, those that did those things and lived that way.”

How do you get that these were “CERTAIN” men? If you follow the flow of argumentation starting in Romans 8:1, you’ll see that those in the “flesh” are those who are not in Christ, and those that are in the “Spirit” are those that are in Christ (”us” according to Paul). There is no in between. Those who do not know the gospel (i.e., those in the flesh) *cannot* submit to God *and are not even able to do so* (v.7).

You said, “Paul seems willing to condemn those particular Romans for IGNORING the Law written on their heart, which seems to presuppose that they could have NOT ignored, but instead heeded it in some way.”

Just because they had this knowledge and suppressed it doesn’t mean that they had the ability in themselves to not suppress it.

You said, “In short, how can someone be “without excuse” for FAILING to heed that “law written on their heart” if they equally had no ability TO heed it (with God’s grace at work in their lives)?”

You’re assuming libertarianism, and thus, begging the question. As a compatibilist/semi-compatibilist, I would say that they DID have a choice to obey but no ability to do so (and nor would they want to) because of their fallen spiritual nature.

I guess what it comes down to is your Arminianism vs. my Calvinism.

Thanks for the conversation, brother.

That last question is one that has been discussed here very often, by Michael and Dan, etc. How BAD can someone’s theology be and still be a Christian, that is one question. Another is how bad can someone’s theology be and still be saved? And, are those two the SAME question? Most people who call themselves Christian have very little theology at all, and if pressed, could very likely fail a test of theological orthodoxy.

But you seem to acknowledge the idea that one can possibly be saved without having even heard the Gospel message, and if you in for a penny, I think you are in for a pound. If you can be saved without explicitly professing Christ (because you don’t know of Christ, or have an incorrect understanding of him), then that opens the door to all of those who lived entirely outside of the Judeo-Christian world, or lived in the tens of thousands of years before there WAS a Judeo-Christian world.

Again, consider my aboriginal Australian in 5,000 BC. Is it POSSIBLE for that person to be saved? If so, how? If he has God’s Law written on his heart, can he either accept or reject it in some way?

Saint and Sinner, I agree with your assessment of Paul and his audience, but he is talking about what happened to CERTAIN of them, those that did those things and lived that way. My question was whether someone who was in that same situation, entirely ignorant of the Jewish presentation of God and the Gospel message, could listen to that law written on their heart, and follow it? Could not God extend His grace to them to allow this, even absent their knowledge and understanding of the Gospel? Paul seems willing to condemn those particular Romans for IGNORING the Law written on their heart, which seems to presuppose that they could have NOT ignored, but instead heeded it in some way.

In short, how can someone be “without excuse” for FAILING to heed that “law written on their heart” if they equally had no ability TO heed it (with God’s grace at work in their lives)?

Regardless of whether or not some early fathers believed that those outside the traditional path could be saved, I think Paul’s point is made in his stating that God has called all men everywhere to repent. Certainly in the context of Paul’s preaching in Athens he has in view repentance from idolatry. I’m sure we would all agree that idolatry occurs in various forms and isn’t limited to the worship of icons — so this would include the worship of any god that is not the Judeo-Christian God, Yahweh. Paul didn’t take the sincerity of their religiosity as valid and refuse to preach the Gospel to them as appears to be the case with the young man who penned the letter we are discussing. Paul rather took the opportunity to preach unto them the unknown God that they had dedicated an icon to and call them to repentance.

You asked: “is it not possible that they could also have ACCEPTED God’s salvation without having heard or understood the actual Gospel message”

Yes, it is possible that one can accept God’s salvation without hearing or understanding the Gospel message although I don’t feel it is very probable in Paul’s thought — Romans 1 seems to just say that they’re without excuse of any kind to include claiming ignorance of God and his righteousness — but I think the real issue is whether or not devoting one’s self to a God other than Yahweh can be viewed as accepting God’s salvation — I don’t see how it can be and I don’t see how one could argue that all gods are just different views of the same god (I’m not saying that this is your argument, but it seems to be the argument of those like the gentleman who wrote the letter).

I would use Islam as a primary example of this and contra the statements from the Catholic Catechism taken from Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate, I don’t see how any legitimate argument can be made that Muslims along with Christian adore the one merciful God when our conceptions of who God is are so radically different and mutually exclusive. And what I find funny (as a person who nearly converted to Islam in my teens) is that Muslims have absolutely no problem viewing the Christian conception of God as blatant polytheism, yet it seems to be that Christians with a penchant for post-modernism want to include everyone in the plan of salvation (except of course for the other Christians who are so intolerable as to actually believe that all views/ways/beliefs aren’t equal).

I’m just curious as to how wrong we can be about who and what God is before it’s too wrong to be saved. When does misunderstanding or ignorance become idolatry?

Reason is a whore!

First of all, Psalm 19 is talking about general revelation, not natural theology. Dittos on Romans 1. Natural theology, the attempt to derive God and/or the gospel from arguments that start with the ultimacy of human categories, is foreign and antithetical to Scripture.

Second, the early Christian philosophers did believe that, but it was only because of the influence of their philosophy on their view of Original Sin. If the realm of forms (i.e. mind) is perfect and incorruptible, then they are going to believe that though man’s moral compass has fallen, his intellect has not. This is the essence of the Thomistic view of Original Sin. Once that is assumed, the belief that man can come to know God apart from special revelation follows.

In other words, the problem with the philosopher’s view is that it assumes the form/matter dialectic of pagan thought.

Paul says that though the heathen have actual knowledge of “The God”, they suppress this truth in unrighteousness (1:18). As a result, God gave them over to futile speculations and a darkened heart (1:21). This is the mindset of every unbeliever, a mindset that will never submit to God (8:7-8). In other words, man’s intellect (including his ability to give noticia or assensus) has fallen as well.

This is why Paul can say in 1 Corinthians 1:21 that the world in its “wisdom” NEVER came to know God.

This is why the Psalmist can say that the heathen have NEVER come to know God’s ordinances (Psalm 147:20).

I agree completely that the reason why some early fathers reached that conclusion about Plato, et al, was their own appreciation for those philosophers’ works. But my point was that they, regardless of their motivations in the particular instance, DID obviously believe that such salvation of those seemingly outside of the traditional path to salvation COULD occur.

memo to self: reread posts before hitting the “submit” button.

I agree completely that the reason why some early fathers reached that conclusion about Plato, et al, was their own appreciation for those philosophers’ works. But my point was that, regardless of their motivations in the particular instance, DID obviously believe that such salvation of those seemingly outside of the traditional path to salvation COULD be saved.

And I agree that those who know God do so because God makes Himself known to them, not because of their own powers. But Scripture also makes it clear that God HAS made Himself known to even those who have never heard of the Judeo-Christian God, or Jesus and his work on the Cross. Psalms discusses this, IIRC and we see Paul stating the same thing in Romans 1 as you point out.

And, thus, I agree with your last point that the knowledge of God is, indeed, actual and not theoretical among even the unbeliever. Those who have never heard the Gospel still have the ability to KNOW God because of this very “self-revealing” that Scripture describes in Romans 1.

And, if they could KNOW God in this way, without having heard or understood the actual Gospel message, and could have REJECTED God’s salvation without having heard or understood the actual Gospel message, is it not possible that they could also have ACCEPTED God’s salvation without having heard or understood the actual Gospel message?

Vance,

You said, “Yet, in considering the ancient Greeks, many early Fathers considered Plato and other philosophers “Christians before Christ”, in that they had been given sufficient revelation through God’s Creation and the gift of their reason to come to a sufficient understanding of God and His ways to be able to realize and accept that truth.”

Most of those fathers were former Platonic philosophers themselves who tried to synthesize Christianity and Platonism. Their bias was there, and it led to a great many heresies (Arianism, Catharsis, Apokatastasis [Universalism], Soul-Sleep, Annihilationism, Apophaticism, Subordinationism, etc.)

Paul directly contradicts the notion that man, starting with his own reason, intuition, experiences, and feelings can ever come to know God. Human autonomy, man starting with the ultimacy of human categories, is considered apostate thought in Scripture (1 Corinthians 1:18-29 and 2:3-16).

As to the point of this whole conversation:

Romans 1:18-32 makes it clear that knowledge of God amongst unbelievers is ACTUAL, not theoretical. Their knowledge is not simply of something divine or a divine sense, but rather, they KNOW of the existence of “TON THEON”, THE GOD. Thus, there can be no “ignorance” excuse (v.20).

If God wants to communicate to men through dreams and visions, then GREAT! However, there is no remission of sins without repentance and bowing the knee before God (and yes, the true God and not a god made in man’s image) and His Anointed One.

If so, then it could be a combination of American arrogance and the prevalence of strict fundamentalism in America (which, of course, could also be a product of that same arrogance!). The practical effect of such fundamentalism, I think, is to oversimplify and then overdogmatize Christian teaching. A dangerous combination.

I can not speak much to the historical aspect, since my area of study was/is the ancient world, not the development of Christian thinking here in America. Once things get to the middle ages, I tend to lose interest!

Ya I understand where you are coming from, and if I make the next statement, we will just restart the cycle we just went through lol.

I’m curious, given your historical background:

Do you think the western philosophy/theologian perspectives have influenced the way the West (more in particular the United States) views missiology and soteriology in our current cultural context?

Here’s what I mean, I remember reading in a “Perspectives Class” (a missions class introduced by my Church), for about 200 years the common thought among American Christians regarding the lost was, “if God in His providence decides to save the heathen, He will.” (this is a quote that was said to one of the first organizers/frontier missionaries to China, I just can’t remember his name, it’s relatively well known though)

Now (at least in other parts of the world) the majority of people view American’s as arrogant (and in some aspects I agree, at least in regard to some of our egos of “being the best” or “better than the rest” mentalities), my question to you is do you think, and if you think so, to what extent do you feel that this type of mentality plays into our view of soteriology especially regarding the lost?

Hopefully that made sense, if not just ask questions and I can clarify.

In essence its: Do you think that what the media and our culture feeds the American public, affects the way we view soteriology?

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh

Jugulum posted just before my last, which will remind always to include the person you are responding to!

1. God is Divine and “His ways are not our ways” and He makes it clear, in Job and elsewhere, that our limited human faculties can only understand the things of God to a limited extent, we can only see “through a glass darkly”.

2. God has made us “in His image” with the ability to reason and understand, and must surely want us to seek out the Truth and “rightly divide” it from what is false. There IS ultimate truth and, to some extent at least, we should be able to understand it, through the combination of revelation and God-given reason (thus the entire Reclaiming the Mind Ministries).

But how do these two work together? Do we not tend to slide either one direction or the other, depending on how humble or how God-empowered we feel at the moment? Right now, I am going through a very “humble” phase, I suppose, since I am sensitive to fooling myself that I can see too clearly, that I can grasp too much of “God’s ways”. I am having a wave of “Eastern Orthodox” acceptance of the mystery, and realizing that our human attempt to pin down a tight systematic theology (including soteriology) is a bit hubristic.

On the issue of repentance, is such a true heart of repentance exclusive to those who have explicitly and knowingly professed Christ crucified? I always have in my vision an aboriginal Australian of 5,000 B.C., as an exemplar. Is there any possible way in which that man or woman could have been saved? How would God’s grace work in that instance? What indicators would there be that they had turned to God, repented and were full of God’s grace and mercy?

It is very easy to see various beliefs as “weird”, and Christianity is no exception. Some aspects of Christian theology will sound weird to those on the outside. (They sometimes seem weird even to some of us on the inside!) And this isn’t limited to religious beliefs; I could easily present quantum theory in a way that makes it sound ridiculous. It is not helpful in any way to laugh at differences. It is not good apologetics–truth isn’t determined by weirdness. It does not prepare the listeners to deal with opposing worldviews. Not is it good diplomacy–it’s just going to offend non-Christians. And if I’m going to offend a non-Christian, I want it to be because the message of the gospel is a stumbling block, not because of my own manner.

That said, the letter writer is choosing to make no distinction between an unsophisticated mocking approach and any and all exclusive truth claims. His approach is hardly better than that which he was criticizing.

And that would give us all the excuse need to write him off and dismiss him.

The saddest thing is that he views himself as a Christian, but rejects the worldview of the One he claims to follow. He rejects the exclusive truth claims that Jesus made, and rejects the gospel that He preached as being intolerant and narrow-minded. As we respond, our aim should not be simply to demonstrate that he’s wrong. We must not simply seek to satisfy ourselves that we are right and he is wrong.

We can dismiss him, or we can try to reach him. We need to do some serious thinking. Not simply about how we can prove post-modernism wrong, but how we can minister to those held captive to its seductive appearance of reasonableness and “tolerance.” How can we best speak the truth in love, with grace?

Fun stuff.

“What if God has elected those who we would not consider “Christian” in the sense of explicit profession? As you say, we could not gainsay God in this in the least.”

I don’t want to get this off topic, but I think the vast majority of calvinist would say, the elect would only be those whom God has chosen to whom would accept Christ as their Savior. They simply would not be elect, with out having Christ.

The issue I have with this whole ideology, is: where is the idea of repentance, and repentance from what? Doing “bad things”, in the sense that they feel bad for doing them (everyone has these at one time or another). Or repenting that they have offended a righteous and holy God? It seems if one is (I mean this in the most polite way) “doing their religion” in seeking God, and doing good things, but have no repentance (of their offenses against God, not just of bad things), wouldn’t that qualify them for being in the state of depravity? And the message of repentance is very strong in Jesus and the Apostles ministry.

I’ll throw another wrench into our discussion about Balaam etc, I have heard a bunch of interviews (one on this site I believe) with J.P. Moreland, and in it Dr. Moreland describes doing some interviews who missionaries who are saying recent Muslim converts are having visions or dreams of Christ coming to them, and then they convert. So I have no idea what to do with that one lol. Curious your thoughts on it.

Its funny we want to put God into a nice systematic theology box so that he can be manageable, and every time we try He just seems to burst out lol.

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh

Is predestination better seen as a doctrine of exclusion or inclusion?

From an Arminian perspective, there is a degree of involvement, no matter how small and how much that involvement is made possible by God’s grace. We are totally depraved, but God has, by His grace, given us ability to turn our face to God. To open the door when God “knocks”, etc. It is still ALL God, in the sense that even this ability is given to us BY God. But this gets us off into the entire Arminian/Calvinist debate, which is definitely off-topic. My point is that there is a potential for this type of consideration within both frameworks, since from the Arminian perspective, God could give each person the ability to turn to Him in some mysterious way.

The Balaam issue is a very interesting one, as well as Melchizidek. How did these folks come to be right with God outside of Israel and the Covenant (well, Melchizidek was before “Israel”, but you get the idea)? What was their understanding of God and the process of getting, and staying, right with God? I really don’t know, and I would hesitate to say that it supports the direction I am considering, but it is possible. I would love to hear Michael’s thought on that one.

Thanks for the helpful information.

I realize you aren’t a calvinist, but I’ve listened to Roger Olsons interview (from this website on “Converse with Scholars”) who is an ariminian. I believe he said that traditional arminians accept the doctrine of total depravity, they would just qualify it differently than Calvinists would, (i.e. all men are in a state of total inability to chose God, but God through His mercy and grace “neutralizes” the darkness found in mans heart, so that they can “truly” have free will to chose accept the Gospel or reject it.[if I have miss-represented or miss-understood, someone please correct me])

I am not sure where Rome stands on this, but I can’t imagine Luther (bondage of the will) and Calvin (who most people go to when talking about predestination), where close “friends” of the Catholic Church, so I can’t comment in that regard.

Obviously you have affirmed that there are holes in this concept, but doesn’t this one issue, seem to demolish the whole concept (as I believe you explained in an earlier post that Dan Wallace posted regarding Gods mercy)?

From the total depravity of man doctrine (inability is a better word) it seems that you simply CANNOT love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself in a way that is glorify to God, UNLESS, God brings about a radical change in you, that is, the “new birth”. This is not to say that people cannot do good things, it is to say the motivate and the heart of the individual cannot do in such a way that is glorify to God because no such desire truly exists within them.

Again I am not saying you haven’t thought about these issues, I’m trying to see if you can “play” someone in that position and try and see how they would respond, because you have good ability to have a broad perspective on issues like these.

On a side note, I have no idea what to do with texts such as the one about Balaam (numbers 22:12 etc), where God speaks to those outside His people (Israel), where it seems that there is no evangelism taken place or any contact that would have caused Balaam to know God (at least from the text) and it appears to be divine revelation to an individual. Curious your perspective on that.

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh