[Veto Roley has again posted a very thoughtful comment that, I believe, continues to take the conversation in a good direction. (And I’m really enjoying responding to his thoughts.)
As before, his words are in italics. Mine are in regular font.]
Paul, though, does not seem to leave the conversation in Romans at a “fairness” level. Rather, Paul charges that we have chosen to reject God. The Jews have chosen to reject God Who had revealed Himself to them in the Old Covenant Scriptures, through the prophets and, lastly, through His Son, Jesus. Gentiles, lacking the revelation given to the Jews, are no less guilty, though, of the charge of choosing to reject God, who revealed Himself through nature or, as you noted, general revelation. The creation screams that God is. Therefore, we are not condemned because we have sinned by violating some command or principle that we do not know, but we are condemned because we have chosen to reject the Creator and, in rejecting Him, we have chosen to rebel against our rightful King. We are condemned, Jew and Gentile alike, not because God isn’t fair, but because God is just.
I agree.
(Rom 1:18-21 NIV) 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Now, I admit that this may be just my reasoning and it is always dangerous for us to assume God does things the way we would do things. This is dangerous because it not only makes God in our image, but it leads us to question our faith when God seems to do something that we would not do. God is God and I am His creation. He does not do things the way I do them. But, it seems to me, that justice demands that if God offers redemption for our rebellion against Him, then He must offer redemption for all men.
That is not a self-evident proposition and seems contrary to the doctrine of election — not the Calvinist misapprehension but the election of Abraham and Israel.
Now, we could legitimately say that God has offered redemption for all men through the death of His Son on the cross. And while this is True, it is equally true that many have not heard the news of God’s redemption. Since they have not heard the news of God’s redemption, and since He has the ability to make all men hear the news if He desires – after all, He sent angels to shepherds to announce His Son’s birth to them, could He not do the same to all tribes of people to announce His death and resurrection? – then it seems to me that God has chosen, through His inaction, for some to receive the news of redemption and have the ability to come to Him but that He has chosen to be silent to others about their redemption.
You assume a lot. Would God have attained better results if he’d sent angels across the world to announce the good news? What is the evidence for that? I think the evidence is to the contrary.
God himself came to earth for three years, to a people prepared for his arrival by over 2,000 years of God’s work among them, and yet nearly all rejected him. He finished a three-year mission campaign with just 120 converts — including his own family.
He drew big crowds but not big conversions.
It was Peter and the other apostles — after the resurrection and ascension — who converted 3,000 in a single day. Why were they so much more effective? Why were the witnesses more persuasive than Jesus himself?
It’s an interesting question, but regardless of the answer, that’s the fact. There’s evidently something about passionate testimony to one’s personal experience with Jesus that converts in a way that Jesus himself could not do! Is it the Spirit? The fact that hearers can more easily identify with Peter?
It certainly wasn’t the miracles. Jesus’ miracles were far more spectacular. It certainly wasn’t the quality of the lessons. No one has ever matched Jesus’ teaching.
I don’t pretend to know the answer, but I know what I read. The gospel spread faster and to more people after Jesus ascended than before.
I find a hint in —
(Luk 16:30-31 NIV) 30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'”
I’m not inclined to question God’s wisdom. He made a good plan. It was working incredibly well. And then we decided that we’re smarter than God and forgot to do our part.
I think God’s plan is the best available plan. Not the best imaginable plan, but the best plan given the limitations of free will and the broken nature of man.
If salvation depends on responding to the special revelation that we in the West have, then God is a respecter of persons because He has chosen to reveal redemption to some but, through His not doing what He has done in the past in the other instances, chosen not to reveal redemption to others.
First, the special revelation has never been limited to the West. It was birthed in the East. Christianity made it to Japan by 1,000 AD. It was in Subsaharan Africa during the lives of the apostles — via the Ethiopian eunuch. (A fact the Ethiopian church is very proud of.)
Second, by the same argument, God was a “respecter of persons” in electing Abraham and Israel.
We must take God’s choosing and election as just as true as his impartiality. How do we reconcile the two? Certainly not by rejecting the doctrine that’s inconsistent with our preferences.
Peter made that announcement in light of God’s salvation of Cornelius — proving that God accepts Gentiles just as he accepts Jews. In that sense, it’s unquestionably not only true but a fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham to bless all nations — through Abraham.
But that covenant also promises that God will do that through Abraham.
And in making the decision not to do anything to ensure His plan of redemption is known universally, God is not just since He has revealed enough of Himself to us in general revelation to condemn for rebellion but has chosen to withhold the means of redemption to others.
I could not disagree more, because you entirely redefine “just” to suit your argument. Justice requires that all be damned. God is always at least just, but justice never requires more than justice.
Now, you could quote to me Paul’s words in Romans 9, “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. … Who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it?” This is the position taken by Calvinists, and to some extent, Muslims. Calvinists dismiss the lost as those chosen by God to demonstrate His wrath and make His power known. Muslims tell us that God is an arbitrary God, that he chooses to save those whom he will save and chooses to condemn those he condemns, that not even Mohammad is assured of his salvation before Allah.
I’m not inclined to argue with Paul, who was instructed by Jesus himself in heaven. Rather, the goal is to understand Paul. And Paul was speaking of the doctrine of election as I’ve laid it out here. God chooses. God elects. But faith is also required. And those Jews who lacked faith in Jesus were broken off from Israel and lost.
Paul’s argument is an a fortiori argument, that is, to make the point that God really can do whatever pleases him (which is true), but not to argue for an unloving God or a God who breaks his covenants. Rather, Paul goes to great lengths in Rom 9 – 11 to demonstrate how his election of those with faith in Jesus is consistent with his covenant promises. (Read my earlier series on Election for a detailed exposition of those chapters.)
But, I would respond, “His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He.”
Again, you redefine “just” to suit the needs of your argument.
God is not arbitrary, but He deals with us justly. He has not unjustly created some for salvation and most for condemnation. Therefore, ISTM, that His justice demands that which is sufficient to condemn us must also, in some way, be sufficient to lead us to some basic level of faith in Him.
But “faith” means “faith in Jesus.” The New Testament is abundantly clear on this point — and nothing else explains the damnation of so many Jews who worshiped God but rejected Jesus.
So, we get back to your question, “but what is the ‘faith’ that saves?” And, not is this a very good question, but to be honest, I don’t know, even after thinking about this issue for the last two decades or so, I have a really good answer.
I think the definition of the faith that saves is clear from the Scriptures. I could quote several dozens verses, but I’m sure you know them as well as I do. It’s faith in Jesus as Lord.
And you know the examples of people with faith in God who weren’t saved until they had faith in Jesus.
It’s a difficult doctrine (but not nearly as difficult as Calvinism!) I’ll dig more deeply into it as we go.
Harkening back to your second essay in this series (/2012/02/baptismamazing-grace-a-conversation-over-lunch-part-2/#more-17082), you posit four views on those that have never heard the Gospel. I won’t discuss the last two views (universal and agnostic, that we can’t say who is saved or not saved), but will discuss the first two: that all those who have not heard the gospel are lost and those who respond to available light will be saved. Now, originally, you put this as, “The ‘available light’ view is that they’re saved, if they’re good people.”
The way that I would put this is that the available light view is that they are saved if they have responded to the Creator in some form of faith. Just being “good” is not enough. There has to be something of faith there. But both views, taken to their extremes, have their problems. How much of the special revelation do we have to know before we can be saved? How much about Jesus do we have to know? What do we have to know about sin, about confession, about repentance, about baptism, about walking with God, about how we organize our worship (e.g. if we use an instrument are we saved? if we have Sunday School classes? if we take Communion from multiple cups?), etc.? The problem with the first view is where do we draw the line. You say at the knowledge of Jesus, but where with that knowledge do we draw the line? Perhaps I don’t have a good answer to what kind of faith produced by available light saves, but I doubt those who hold to the first position have a really good line as to where the special knowledge we must have for salvation is.
I honestly just don’t see the problem, because I’m a practically minded person (and hate epistemology). I mean, we baptize children 12 years old upon confession of faith in Jesus with no hesitation.
We ask them to make the Great Confession. They make it. We baptize them. We treat them as saved people.
Do we sometimes baptize the unconverted? Probably, but it’s still a good system because we can’t read minds or see into hearts. And it’s what we’re told to.
(Rom 10:9-12 ESV) 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
And —
(1Jo 4:2-3 ESV) 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
And —
(1Co 12:3 ESV) 3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.
Our instructions are clear. They make perfect sense. There’s no reason to navel gaze about the imperfections in the system. Those who confess faith in Jesus are to be treated as saved. Those who don’t aren’t.
How much faith is enough? Enough to confess faith in Jesus.
And we don’t add faith in Five Acts of Worship or the Churches of Christ or anything else. It’s simple enough.
Should we confirm that the convert has an elementary understanding of what the confession means? Well, the Nicene Creed is by no means elementary. But it would help to be certain a 12-year old understands the import of “Lord.” Sure.
All I can tell you, Jay, is that it must be some form of faith. You ask about Cornelius. I can tell you I believe that if Cornelius refused to be baptized then I believe he would have been lost. But I can not tell you for certainty that Cornelius was lost when Peter first met him. And there is nothing in Acts that suggests that Cornelius was lost. In fact, Luke tells us that Cornelius was a “devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.” And, later, Luke quotes the delegation from Cornelius to Peter and they call him “righteous”. On the other hand, there is nothing in Luke’s account that tells us specifically that Cornelius was saved. But, Acts does tell us that Cornelius had faith.
I have the testimony of an angel of God to support my views —
(Act 11:13-15 ESV) 13 And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; 14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning.
Seems pretty clear.
Now you may counter with Acts 11:14, where Cornelius is told that Peter “will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.” But, it is not clear, or at least not clear to me, that Cornelius is lost at that moment, or if he would be lost had he ignored the words that Peter said.
The verb tense is future passive, which almost always refers to punctiliar action, that is, point-in-time action — as is clearly the case. The angel doesn’t say that Peter is to announce the good news that Cornelius is already saved by his faith in God the Father. Rather, plainly, is Cornelius will be saved by hearing “words … by which which you will be saved.”
And the reason it is not clear for me is the very words Luke uses in Acts 10 when, as we’ve noted, he called Cornelius “devout” and a “God fearer”.
“God fearer” and “devout” were terms used for Gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel without being proselytes.
The NET Bible notes state,
[T]his is practically a technical term for the category called God-fearers, Gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel and in many cases kept the Mosaic law, but did not take the final step of circumcision necessary to become a proselyte to Judaism. See further K. G. Kuhn, TDNT 6:732–34, 743–44.
Acts has references to God fearers other than Cornelius. Acts 13:16, 13:26. Listen to Paul’s sermon at Antioch of Pisidia —
(Act 13:26-41 ESV) 26 “Brothers, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to us has been sent the message of this salvation. …
32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers … .
38 Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.
40 Beware, therefore, lest what is said in the Prophets should come about: 41 “‘Look, you scoffers, be astounded and perish; for I am doing a work in your days, a work that you will not believe, even if one tells it to you.'”
Paul was preaching to devout Jews and God-fearing Gentiles. And he promised them “salvation” and “forgiveness of sins.” What sins — if they were already saved?
If Cornelius had rejected Jesus, he would have been lost. Therefore Peter’s words about Jesus were means to salvation. (BTW, I don’t believe salvation is a one-time event that remains good throughout one’s life, but is conditional on our walking with God.) But there is nothing here, at least for me, to say that if Cornelius never heard of Jesus he would have been lost. Further, to argue that Cornelius was lost, you have the problem of his receiving the Holy Spirit. So, the passage does not say he was lost prior to hearing Peter, nor does it say he was saved.
The angel who spoke to Cornelius promised salvation, not a better salvation. Paul promised forgiveness of sins, not an even closer walk with God.
Cornelius received the Spirit upon coming to faith in Jesus, as the angel said, in response to Peter’s words — the gospel message that Jesus is Lord.
You mention the followers of Plato who did not convert to Christianity even though they believed in one God. Did they believe in the Creator, or did they believe in Plato’s concept of god? And, there is a difference. It is faith in God, faith in the Creator, that saves us. And while I can’t exactly define what that faith is, I know it must be present in some form. And it is a faith in the Being behind the universe, behind the creation, the Being who moves us. It is not belief in this Being, for Agrippa had a belief in God that was strong enough for Paul to call him out on his belief, but little faith. It is faith in this Being.
Plato taught a single god, who is the Prime Mover. You might say “Creator.” But it wasn’t YHWH.
This is a critically important point. The Jews and Muslims worship the God of Israel, but both misunderstand him. If the Jews and Muslims truly understood God, they’d accept Jesus as Messiah and Lord, because Jesus is the image of God.
Therefore, they worship a misunderstood Creator, and that’s not good enough. God insists on being worshiped as he is revealed through Jesus. And this is why the monotheistic Greeks weren’t saved or even considered God fearers.
This is why Deists and Agnostics aren’t saved. They may recognize a god or even a creator, but not the God revealed by his Image in the flesh. That’s not faith.
Now, by now, you might be thinking I fall into the agnostic camp, that we can not tell who is lost or saved, particularly when I say that I do not judge another person’s salvation. However, I am not of the agnostic camp since I also believe, particularly for those with special revelation, that there are two beings who know if they are saved: the individual and God. We can know if we are saved. Everyone around us may look at us and guess, and some guesses may be very good based on the life they see us live, but we know. So while I believe it is beyond my abilities to look into someone’s life and say with certainty that they are saved or lost, I strongly believe that person can look at their own life and relationship with God and know if they are saved or lost. Further, as noted in my last post, those who are denied special revelation, but who respond in faith to general revelation, need to know more about God so they can deepen their walk with Him.
I would agree to this limited extent. I think we are plainly told how to decide whom to treat as saved — those who confess faith in Jesus. But obviously many who’ve made that confession give every appearance of having fallen away.
I don’t think we can know for sure whether such a person has lost the Spirit. I think we treat them as straying sheep in desperate need of repentance. But we do make a judgment: who needs to be rebuked and called to repentance. That is also clear.
And that brings me to the major point that I was making in my last post. Ultimately, it is God, who perfectly sees the heart, who decides who is and is not saved. He makes this judgment with perfect justice and knowledge. As I noted before, our job is to plant (what I take to mean is preach and teach) and to water (what I take to mean encourage, edify, etc.). It is God’s job to give growth.
I agree.
And I believe the Spirit can birth faith through general revelation.
It’s just so important that we use language in the Biblical sense when we have serious theological discussion. “Faith” means “faith in Jesus.” Therefore, I must dissent.
And I believe that once this faith is birthed, if it is true, genuine faith that takes root in man’s heart, then it only deepens when special, revealed faith is added. That someone does not deepen their walk with God after special revelation is given suggests to me that their faith was never deep, that it was not birthed in the heart. Where faith is birthed in the heart, as it was for Cornelius, faith is strengthened by special revelation.
There is simply no evidence for that position, and quite a lot of evidence in the Scriptures to the contrary.
On the other hand, God can — through general revelation and Providence and perhaps even other Divine actions — open someone’s heart to the message of hope, the gospel of Jesus — so that someone, such as a Cornelius, believes instantly. But there was no “faith” before then, but there is a heart opened by God.
(Act 16:14 ESV) 14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.
Just one final, minor note to close: all Muslims, if they read the Koran, know about Jesus (or Isa).
True enough, but “knowing about” and “knowing” are not the same thing. I know some atheists who know about Jesus.
Election — God’s choosing of Israel — is not easy. God moves in human history, and every time he does, he makes a choice. He can act or not act. He can act in my life or not. He can heal or not. He can move a person or not. He can send an angel or not.
We want to imagine that God is Santa Claus — a giver of presents to all, even the naughty. We get presents just for being born.
But God is not Santa Claus, and his purpose is not merely to give gifts. He does give gifts! But that is not his purpose.
His purpose is reconciliation — to restore people to right relationship with himself and with one another. And to do this, he must transform us — through his Spirit and through our keeping a constant focus on his Son. It can’t be done without the Son.
Could God have come up with a better, more rational, more American system? No. If he could have, he would have.
But why not? Why rely on vessels as broken and weak as us? Isn’t that obviously a bad plan? Aren’t we right to blame God for relying on us?
I think not. I think God is doing the best he can with the hand he’s been dealt — by his choice to give us free will and to allow us to become the kind of people we are — by our own choice.
