Creeping Universalism

[hedrick]

My previous posting looks only at half the story, however. Most of Romans is about Christ, after all. However I object to the Protestant tendency to treat all of Rom 2 as something Paul wasn't serious about: a kind of responsibility that no one has ever done. Certainly Jewish patriarchs did it, and I'd argue that there were at least some other godly people in the OT.

Yet it is clear from Rom 3 that Rom 2 and our responsibility to God wasn't enough. After all, Israel disobeyed badly enough that it was exiled, and in Paul's time still hadn't really come back. So God offered a new way out: Christ.

Yet it's interesting to see that he introduces this section with a treatment of Abraham. And there's a good reason for this. Because the way out actually started with Abraham. The covenant was the start of God's dealing with sin. Abraham demonstrates this. The problem is that rather than trusting in God's way of salvation in the covenant, people turned the covenant into a sign of privilege, making circumcision and the rest into a sign that they had special privileges. What Abraham shows us is the right way to regard the covenant, namely as a call to rely on God and expect him to use it to renew us.

But now we have the new covenant, based on Christ. It is now in a form that will truly get to us. Through his death and resurrection, God renews the heart.

But the goal is the same as always: to get us to the point where we do what God commands. Faith isn't opposed to obedience, as 1 Cor makes clear. Rather, faith is trusting in God's activity in both the covenant and Christ and submitting to it as God's power to renew us. Paul doesn't make the same contrast with Christians that he did with Jews, presumably because he wasn't running into the problem. But I would argue that the same danger is present for Christians as for Jews. Just as the Judaizers were seeing covenant as privilege rather than as a way God was using to renew us, so there is a similar danger with Christ. Rather than relying on him as God's way of renewing us, we can see him as something that sets us off from other people, as a privilege, turning baptism into the Christian equivalent of the Judaizers' misunderstanding of circumcision.

What is the implication of this for non-Christians? I still think that nothing here removes the possibility of non-Christians having the law, or Christ, written in their hearts. There are serious obstacles posed by non-Christian religions, but we need to be wary of doing with Christ exactly what the Jews did with the Law: turning Christ into a sign of privilege rather than God's way to renew us. As there can be people with the Law written in their hearts, I think there can be people with Christ written in their hearts.

I don't see an explicit treatment of this in Paul. In 1 Cor he says it's not our job to judge non-Christians. God will judge them. Our approach to them is as ambassadors of reconciliation, just as Israel was intended to be a light to the Gentiles.

 

[Petruchio]

I think don't think you've made a convincing argument that you had to be part of Israel in the OT to be saved.

I think that, your post is a rather firm example of "artificial exegesis," as most of it was refuted already even before you had written the post. You call the Gentiles in Romans 2 righteous, even though Paul calls them guilty, albeit they "perish without the law," since they are judged by the law written in their hearts. (But then you call this same law in them "righteousness," rather nonsensically, and make no effort to prove your radical claim.) It is illogical, since the whole purpose of Paul is to show the necessity of salvation through Christ, since "none are righteous, no not one," which he concludes in the third chapter. You even referenced Romans 2:11, even though the impartiality that God shows is a common condemnation of both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 3:9-10). Of course, this is all just a rehash of what I already said, and though you claimed to not be convinced, you did not give a convincing reason why you are not convinced of this orthodox doctrine.

You mention Melchizedek, which is strange, since there is not a more mysterious person in the Bible, and use it as evidence against me (you use a mystery against me). Now, you would have to argue that Melchizedek was saved by not being a member of the church of God to fit your argument, which you do not seem to do (you seem to say that he worshiped the one true God, though He was no Israelite, though there weren't any Israelites at that time anyway), but then you mention the three wise-men, which makes me think twice, because you then say that they likely remained in their non-Christian religions. Now these people are also a mystery, and we do not know anything about them, whether they converted or not. We know nothing, but with your "artificial exegesis," you make of nothing something, and without any basis make these claims. But then, it gets even worse, when you mention Gandhi.

Now, if I were in your shoes, I would have been very embarrassed to even mention Gandhi, as it is no secret that he was a sexual deviant, with all sorts of strange ideas about sex, a magical view about the power of sperm, and a tendency to sleep naked, side by side, the wives of other men (who were forbidden to have sex with their own wives), or with his nieces, depending on the schedule he kept. Gandhi is only regarded as being a sinless creature by the silly popular culture. (It also suggests that you hold a Catholic view of salvation, since, obviously, you would not mention Gandhi if you didn't think that his "goodness" merited for him heaven. Though, actually, the entire doctrine of incluvisim, is, in fact, a Roman Catholic doctrine, enshrined in their catechism.)

Now, if God were indifferent about what religion you hold, so long as you were a monotheist, it does not follow that Christ would respond the way He did to the Samaritan woman who asked Him where it was proper to worship God. The Samaritans claimed to worship the "one true God," and they had a rival temple in those mountains (John 4:20), which they believed (falsely) was the proper place to worship. It had been built not long after the second temple, and stood for 200 years, though it was destroyed (though the worship in those mountains did not cease). They claimed descent from Abraham, and regarded that mountain as Holy and a superior place to worship than the temple in Jerusalem. If what you say is true, Christ should have answered that they were also a part of the church of God, because they were more than just monotheists, but actually believers in the One True God, albeit they were convinced of a different manner of worship. But, instead of telling her what you would have said, He tells her "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews" (Joh 4:22). Of course, in the next breath, He declares that the "time is coming, and now is" when the Jewish mode of worship would be abolished, and all true worshipers would worship in Spirit and Truth. But, that is just it, the hour in which the site of worship would no longer matter was not before then, but had come with Christ Himself, who would gather all His sheep from across the world who would have faith in Him, and in His finished work on the cross.

Now, you also make the absurd argument that Israel would be the light of the world, in the sense that no one had to believe in that light to be saved; and also that the covenant God made with Abraham was to all the nations, rather than to Abraham's seed, and that this seed (which Paul says is Christ), all nations would be blessed. These arguments are totally nonsensical, and my answers to them should be obvious.

But for me, who might Paul have been thinking of? Presumably not those of Rom 1 whose idolatry had blinded them. But not everyone in a pagan culture is that way.

This is a view common to those who argue that the sin of homosexuality is only a sin in the context of idol worship. As explained previously, Paul's purpose in these first 3 chapters is to show that everyone, both Jew and Gentile, is under sin. There is no reason to believe that there are any exceptions to Paul's conclusion that all are under sin, and are not righteous, and do not seek after God.

Not only does your line of argument, in effect, deny total depravity, but also that salvation is by grace only. As it is the Biblical doctrine that all those who believe in Christ, are those whom the Holy Spirit has quickened and brought to faith. Outside of this, no one can believe, because all men are too devoted to their sins to believe. So not only do you do away with faith, you propose either that the Holy Spirit leads people into false religions and doctrines, like Gandhi, rather than to Jesus Christ; or you propose that men are saved by their merits, and not by God's effectual grace; that is, their own essential goodness and devotion to the truth (or what passes for "goodness" and "truth). In either case, you've abandoned Reformed doctrine and have taken something more akin to the Roman Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox.

The scripture is quite clear that no one is righteous, and what passes as our righteousness is, in the sight of God, nothing more than dung-stained rags.

 

[Petruchio]

Paul doesn't make the same contrast with Christians that he did with Jews, presumably because he wasn't running into the problem. But I would argue that the same danger is present for Christians as for Jews.

I don't know what to make of the content of this post. You say "presumably," as if the scripture does not explicitly say that Christians are saved by grace; that it is grace which makes an unwilling man willing, and it is grace which causes a man to produce fruit. As Augustine so magnificently explains:

“When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. “But we say,” say they, “that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work.” But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, “We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who works all things”. (Ephesians 1:11) He, therefore, works the beginning of our belief who works all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” (Romans 11:29) and of which it is said: “Not of works, but of Him that calls” (Romans 9:12) (although He might have said, of Him that believes); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” (John 15:16) For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe.” (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Ch. 38)

“All our good merits are only wrought in us by grace, and -when God crowns our merits, he crowns nothing but his own gifts. (Augustine, Letter 194)

“For who makes thee to differ, and what has thou that thou hast not received?” (1 Cor. iv. 7). Our merits therefore do not cause us to differ, but grace. For if it be merit, it is a debt; and if it be a debt, it is not gratuitous; and if it be not gratuitous, it is not grace. (Augustine, Sermon 293)

The content of this post strikes me as utterly nonsensical, since it seems to be denying that it is by God that we "will and to do of His good pleasure," and that salvation consists of doing good works in and of ourselves, rather than seeing all our good works as the manifestation of God's work, and not our own. You also make random citations of entire books, rather than verses, saying they say something that proves your case, without giving anything specific. This is just very strange.

 

[hedrick]

I You call the Gentiles in Romans 2 righteous, even though Paul calls them guilty, albeit they "perish without the law," since they are judged by the law written in their hearts.

Rom 2:14. Sorry. I thought that was obvious.

On Rom 2:11, see 2:10. He is referring to both praise and condemnation.

(But then you call this same law in them "righteousness," rather nonsensically, and make no effort to prove your radical claim.) It is illogical, since the whole purpose of Paul is to show the necessity of salvation through Christ, since "none are righteous, no not one," which he concludes in the third chapter.

No, he is trying to show that what matters isn't whether you're a Jew outwardly, but whether you are actually doing what the Law requires.

You even referenced Romans 2:11, even though the impartiality that God shows is a common condemnation of both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 3:9-10). Of course, this is all just a rehash of what I already said, and though you claimed to not be convinced, you did not give a convincing reason why you are not convinced of this orthodox doctrine.

See Rom 2:10 for the context. " 9 There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality."

You mention Melchizedek, which is strange, since there is not a more mysterious person in the Bible, and use it as evidence against me (you use a mystery against me). Now, you would have to argue that Melchizedek was saved by not being a member of the church of God to fit your argument, which you do not seem to do (you seem to say that he worshiped the one true God, though He was no Israelite, though there weren't any Israelites at that time anyway),

I cited him as someone not an Israelite who apparently worshipped God. I don't care who he was, though the text identifies him. Abraham was the beginning of Israel. If the God he represented wasn't the Lord, then Hebrews is very confused. I do apologize for using obscure examples. I'm not writing an academic commentary and used the first couple I could think of. Probably I remembered them precisely because they were unusual.

I would never claim that anyone was sinless, least of all Gandhi, but he did seem to have been inspired by Jesus. Again, there may well be better examples, but I don't do CF postings with the care of learned paper.

It also suggests that you hold a Catholic view of salvation, since, obviously, you would not mention Gandhi if you didn't think that his "goodness" merited for him heaven. Though, actually, the entire doctrine of incluvisim, is, in fact, a Roman Catholic doctrine, enshrined in their catechism.

Huh? I don't think anyone merits heaven. I do think that people may have Jesus in their hearts without being Christian. Are you just throwing stock accusations at me?

Now, if God were indifferent about what religion you hold, so long as you were a monotheist, it does not follow that Christ would respond the way He did to the Samaritan woman who asked Him where it was proper to worship God. The Samaritans claimed to worship the "one true God," and they had a rival temple in those mountains (John 4:20), which they believed (falsely) was the proper place to worship. It had been built not long after the second temple, and stood for 200 years, though it was destroyed (though the worship in those mountains did not cease).

I mostly certainly do think that it matters who you worship. That's why I cited Rom 1. However I think some non-Christians may have experienced Christ, despite the teachings of their religion. This is standard inclusivism.

Now, you also make the absurd argument that Israel would be the light of the world, in the sense that no one had to believe in that light to be saved; and also that the covenant God made with Abraham was to all the nations, rather than to Abraham's seed, and that this seed (which Paul says is Christ), all nations would be blessed. These arguments are totally nonsensical, and my answers to them should be obvious.

Obviously the light was intended to enlighten. This was a response to your claim that to be saved previous to Christ you had to be part of the covenant with Israel. My point was that the role of Israel was to bring the nations together to Jerusalem to worship God, but not to make them all Jews.

This is a view common to those who argue that the sin of homosexuality is only a sin in the context of idol worship. As explained previously, Paul's purpose in these first 3 chapters is to show that everyone, both Jew and Gentile, is under sin. There is no reason to believe that there are any exceptions to Paul's conclusion that all are under sin, and are not righteous, and do not seek after God.

Why does everything come down to homosexuality for you? My point was that for Paul worshipping an idol is a real stumbling-block. That's why I can't say that it just doesn't matter what you worship. Do you disagree that Rom 1 is a condemnation of pagan religion?

Not only does your line of argument, in effect, deny total depravity, but also that salvation is by grace only. As it is the Biblical doctrine that all those who believe in Christ, are those whom the Holy Spirit has quickened and brought to faith. Outside of this, no one can believe, because all men are too devoted to their sins to believe. So not only do you do away with faith, you propose either that the Holy Spirit leads people into false religions and doctrines, like Gandhi, rather than to Jesus Christ; or you propose that men are saved by their merits, and not by God's effectual grace; that is, their own essential goodness and devotion to the truth (or what passes for "goodness" and "truth). In either case, you've abandoned Reformed doctrine and have taken something more akin to the Roman Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox.

The scripture is quite clear that no one is righteous, and what passes as our righteousness is, in the sight of God, nothing more than dung-stained rags.

I certainly do not reject grace. I say simply that grace is probably not restricted to the Church, and that you risk turning faith in Christ into the Christian equivalent of a work of the Law.

I don't think you've followed the argument enough to make it worth continuing, and this probably isn't the right place anyway.

---------

Part of the issue here is that i'm following current Reformed approaches in interpreting Romans. It doesn't make sense to write a commentary on Romans as a CF posting (I probably came too close in these postings for the amount of time I had), but without some background, I think we may be stuck. If you wanted to explore, I was using Achtemeier's commentary in Interpretation, though I've recently been looking at commentaries by Moo and Dunn (as well as Calvin, obviously). However Achtemeier didn't deal with the question of salvation of non-Christians explicitly, though there are some obvious implications. So much of what I said shouldn't be blamed on him.

 

[Petruchio]

Rom 2:14. Sorry. I thought that was obvious.

On Rom 2:11, see 2:10. He is referring to both praise and condemnation.

No, he is trying to show that what matters isn't whether you're a Jew outwardly, but whether you are actually doing what the Law requires.

None of these assertions of yours, which deny the guilt of the Gentiles, nor any of your citations, actually support your arguments. If you wish to overturn historical Reformed doctrine, you're going to have to make an account of all the scriptures, and not just wrest one or two. Whether you are following the "new" view or not is irrelevant, since, obviously, it all falls apart if we read Romans in context.

In fact, most of what you write does not address anything I've said, or even give a convincing argument for why you continue to put forward these strange doctrines. As for Melchizedek, again, now I'm not sure what your argument is anymore, because you mentioned the 3 wise-men as specifically remaining non-Christians. Why would you mention that, if not to prove that it was not necessary to worship the One True God? If the Kingly-Priesthood was instituted by God, through this mysterious figure as being the first, or if this figure were Seth or a pre-incarnate Christ (though both are unlikely views), and then later disappeared, it does not support your rampant speculations. It would only work if this King of Salem was merely an infidel, who willy-nilly established a man-made Priesthood. But if the Priesthood is valid, it must have been established by God, and therefore he was no infidel as you would explain it.

I would never claim that anyone was sinless, least of all Gandhi, but he did seem to have been inspired by Jesus.

Again with Gandhi? I'd recommend you drop him entirely.

Huh? I don't think anyone merits heaven. I do think that people may have Jesus in their hearts without being Christian. Are you just throwing stock accusations at me?

I'm trying to fine a line of logic through your arguments. Though, at this point, I think the logic has all but disappeared. How does one believe in Jesus, when not believing in Jesus? How does one "experience" Christ, without the Holy Ghost? Or, if they do experience Christ through grace, how can someone be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and yet not have faith in Jesus? These things you do not explain.

Obviously the light was intended to enlighten. This was a response to your claim that to be saved previous to Christ you had to be part of the covenant with Israel. My point was that the role of Israel was to bring the nations together to Jerusalem to worship God, but not to make them all Jews.

This concept is silly, since there are provisions in the Old Testament for strangers who convert to Judaism. Why would the Jews not want to convert people to the true religion of God, and why would Christ say that salvation is of the Jews, if no one had to believe in the religion of Abraham? And what is this nonsense statement about "the light was intended to enlighten?" Do you think that salvation is wrought not through faith in Christ, but in the knowledge of caring for the poor or being a "good person"? If so, how do you square that with Total Depravity and Sola Gracia?

You need to be more specific and define the words you are using, as I suspect they are quite far away from their Biblical usage. This idea of non-believers in other religions having "Jesus" in their heart is also quite repulsive, and I suspect it would only get worse the more carefully you define yourself.

I certainly do not reject grace. I say simply that grace is probably not restricted to the Church, and that you risk turning faith in Christ into the Christian equivalent of a work of the Law.

This is a blasphemous conclusion, because God is not the author of sin, nor is His grace ineffectual, that people remain heathens or are encouraged in their non-Christian religions.

Part of the issue here is that i'm following current Reformed approaches in interpreting Romans. It doesn't make sense to write a commentary on Romans as a CF posting (I probably came too close in these postings for the amount of time I had), but without some background, I think we may be stuck. If you wanted to explore, I was using Achtemeier's commentary in Interpretation,

I mostly read Piper, or White, and a handful of others. None of these Reformed teachers support your view of Romans. Nor do your views represent Reformed theology, except perhaps the fringe who no longer really hold to classical doctrine. And I'd be suspicious if Achtemeier really supports you or not, though I know him not.

I don't think you've followed the argument enough to make it worth continuing, and this probably isn't the right place anyway.

I think the real problem is that you are not engaging in the conversation, really. It may seem like you are, but it is not really a "conversation" if you do not respond to me properly. These kinds of discussions with Universalists/Inclusivists are always rather one sided like this.

 

[hedrick]

Let's take things one by one. I'm not sure I have time or patience to go through Romans with you. But at least some of your objections we should be able to deal with.

The first thing you said that I objected to is that in the OT what matters for salvation is being part of the covenant people. A more sensible conservative position is that in the OT what matters is worshipping the true God. As Isaiah makes it clear, the purpose of the covenant people is to lead all nations to God. Abraham's goal is to be a blessing to all the nations, Gen 12:3, 22:18. In the prophetic vision of the future, all people come to Jerusalem to worship God. They don't all become Jews. Is 49:6 (the covenant is a light to the Gentiles), Is 60, Jer 3:17-19, Zech 14:16.

That's why I was trying to come up with examples of people outside Israel who worshipped God.

Paul's main problem with the Judaizers is precisely this issue. They see membership in the physical covenant people as a source of salvation. Hence circumcision is a mark of salvation for them (or perhaps, a requirement to be saved). While he doesn't say so explicitly, presumably Paul understands the OT vision of the covenant as basically one of service, of being a light to the Gentiles. Hence what matters is not being part of the physical covenant people, and thus "works of the Law" such as circumcision aren't what saves. Rather, the true Israel is those who do what God wants, Rom 2:13-16, 2:28-29.

This is not the end of the argument in Romans, because Paul will argue that you can't do what God wants without faith. Indeed, the phrase law written in their hearts (2:15) sounds a lot like the new covenant. But the only point I'm making here is that for Paul the issue isn't membership in a group, or the signs of that (circumcision), but the reality. And I don't think it's unreasonable to extend the same kind of argument to Christianity.

 

[Petruchio]

Let's take things one by one.

I suppose I shall have to take the horse to water, AND chuck him into it too! There's no reason to start the conversation from scratch when you've not answered anything as of yet.

On Romans, you made the following claims; first, that the Gentiles in Romans 2 are righteous Gentiles: "[the] idol-worshippers are not going to be the kind of righteous Gentiles that Paul is referring to in Rom 2." And, I suppose you argue, they are righteous Gentiles because: "Rom 2 also speaks of Gentiles who have the Law in their hearts," and "God shows no partiality." In other words, the Gentiles in Romans 2 are righteous because they have the law of God in their hearts, and God is no respecter of persons. You offered the following verses as proof that these Gentiles are righteous: Rom 2:9-11, 14, though you only offered a couple of verses as context verses, so perhaps you weren't trying to prove it out of them.

The obvious reply, first, is that verse 14, nor any verse in Romans 2, differentiates any group of Gentiles from another. He simply says, "the Gentiles":

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:"
(Rom 2:14)

Therefore, all Gentiles, and Jews to for that matter, have the law of God written on their hearts. It's called our conscience, which tells every human being on the planet that they are wrong when they commit sins, such as stealing, murdering, lying, etc. This knowledge can be darkened, and even turned on its head, but it is present for everyone, so that the Gentiles, who have not the law, have a law "unto themselves," which God will judge them for "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" (Rom 2:16). In fact, verse 12, which occurs right after the "God shows no partiality" thing you offered up, says "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;" (Rom 2:12). The obvious meaning isn't that God shows no partiality in whether you believe in Him or not; the meaning is that God does not show any difference between Jews and Gentiles when judging them to hell. In the first case, the Jews, who wish to be justified by the law, will be judged and condemned by it, because "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" (Gal 3:10). In the second place, the Gentiles, who have the law written on their hearts, will be judged by them. Thus, Paul concludes:

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"
(Rom 3:9-10)

Now, let's compare this to your original comments:

"Righteous Gentiles"

Now Paul:

'There is none righteous, no not one;'

And the other important comment, "we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." What does it mean "before proved," and "all under sin?" Obviously, Paul proved from his arguments from Romans 1 and 2 that both Jews and Gentiles are guilty before God, and that "non are righteous, no not one."

This is why I accused you of not really replying to me or engaging the conversation, since, number one, even your verses, by themselves, didn't prove what you were saying; and, secondly, because my verses say exactly what I claim. And you made no attempt at all in responding to it, but just repeated, for a 2nd and then a 3rd time, the same silly things you said before. You even added even more absurdities, by claiming that these special Gentiles, different from the idolaters, have faith implanted in their hearts.

Honestly, I should not have been driven to give this reply, especially since a Presbyterian should understand these doctrines. Then again, maybe the PCUSA is too busy apostatizing to even teach their poor parishioners the basics of reformed doctrine?

Next, let's take a look at this next statement, which begs the questions I asked you before:

"As Isaiah makes it clear, the purpose of the covenant people is to lead all nations to God. Abraham's goal is to be a blessing to all the nations, Gen 12:3, 22:18. In the prophetic vision of the future, all people come to Jerusalem to worship God. They don't all become Jews. Is 49:6 (the covenant is a light to the Gentiles), Is 60, Jer 3:17-19, Zech 14:16."

I can't help but to see this paragraph of yours as almost totally meaningless. I mean, it has, absolutely, no meaning when you give it. If I had said it, it would be meaningful, but when you say it, it has no meaning. None. In fact, here is something with much more meaning than this nonsensical comment of yours:

"On our assumptions, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not subject to the strong generative capacity of the theory. Let us continue to suppose that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction does not affect the structure of the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)). By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, this selectionally introduced contextual feature may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories."

Eat that!

Now the reason why I say your comment is meaningless is because you already told me that it's unimportant what God you worship. You mentioned the 3 wise-men, whom you speculated remained in their non-Christian religion. You specifically are making arguments here extending salvation not to those who worship God, but to infidels, even agnostics, who don't believe in God. You said that Christ can be "in their hearts," but you do not answer any of my questions I very seriously posed to you before.

1) "How does one believe in Jesus, when not believing in Jesus?"
2) "How does one "experience" Christ, without the Holy Ghost?"
3) (A new one) "How can you have Christ in your heart, and yet not be a believer in Jesus Christ?"
3) "And what is this nonsense statement about "the light was intended to enlighten?" (What do you mean by "enlighten?" What do you mean by "light"? What light? If they aren't believing, what is the light for?"
4) "if they do experience Christ through grace, how can someone be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and yet not have faith in Jesus?"
5) A new one: "Do you argue that there are non-Christians regenerated and filled by the Holy Spirit?"

The problem with groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Universalists/Quasi-Universalists, is that they constantly re-define Christian terms into brand new things.

It is necessary that you define yourself, because otherwise it is impossible to speak to you on any common ground. When you say "light," I of course think of the Christian understanding, which is, that Christ is the light of the world; when you say "enlighten," I think, the Holy Spirit enlightening the soul with faith in Christ, per the scripture.

On the other hand, you write: "While he doesn't say so explicitly, presumably Paul understands the OT vision of the covenant as basically one of service, of being a light to the Gentiles."

I'm not sure what you mean by "service," or this word "light" again. I suspect it's the Social Justice/Liberation Theology idea of 'service,' as if the Gospel is about saving the poor from poverty instead of their souls. You say "presumably," probably because your idea, whatever it is, simply doesn't exist.

Please, define yourself properly, and if you respond to me, respond to my arguments. Don't just repeat yourself with all these absurd things you say.

 

[hedrick]

I give up. In Rom 2:1-15 Paul is repeatedly contrasting those who do what the law teaches with those who don't. Thus 2:14 refers to only some Gentiles, namely those that do what the law requires. If you don't see that, then it's pretty clear we're never going to be able to look at a piece of text and get anywhere near the same meaning. And since 2:13 says that those who do the Law are righteous, and 2:14 refers to Gentiles who do the Law, it doesn't seem unreasonable to refer to them as righteous. I prefer to understand the text and then develop doctrine. Sorry. I don't think communication is going to be possible.

[The problem is made worse by King James' use of "the Gentiles." All other translations I've checked except NET, even New King James, simply say "Gentiles," since it's clear from context that only some Gentiles are meant, and the Greek has nothing to imply "the."]

 

[Petruchio]

If you don't see that, then it's pretty clear we're never going to be able to look at a piece of text and get anywhere near the same meaning. Sorry. I'm stuck.

Obviously, these doctrines require the Holy Spirit even to believe in them. Until one is regenerated, they cannot possibly understand the scripture. But, at the very least, all true Christians will be able to read these posts, and decide for themselves which one is actually in line with sound doctrine.

[The problem is made worse by King James' use of "the Gentiles."

This is silly, because the context obviously would entail all Gentiles, and if there was anything otherwise, you would demonstrate it, and you would not resort to ignoring scriptures to prove it. With or without the article, you'd also have to deal with "all" are under sin, "no one" is righteous, etc.

I give up.

Okay, but you have to cry uncle, if you want me to let you go.

 

[hedrick]

Obviously, these doctrines require the Holy Spirit even to believe in them. Until one is regenerated, they cannot possibly understand the scripture. But, at the very least, all true Christians will be able to read these posts, and decide for themselves which one is actually in line with sound doctrine.

That's our problem. I prefer to look at the text and see which one is in line with what Paul actually says.

 

[tulipbee]

The rcc is always pushing universal salvation for all.... ..

You mean the RCC believes all will go to Heaven?

 

[tulipbee]

One church cliams: "The PCUSA is plagued with what is often called “creeping universalism.”

How plagued is it or is that an overstatement or an dishonest opinion?

 

[AMR]

Tulipbee,

All denominations are broken in the sense that they are comprised of imperfect people. If we extend the metaphor a wee bit, the real question for most denominations is are they suffering from simple fractures or compound fractures with the bones exposed.

As this article (dated 2011) demonstrates the PC(USA) probably meets the description of the latter metaphor.

 

[hedrick]

One church cliams: "The PCUSA is plagued with what is often called “creeping universalism.”

How plagued is it or is that an overstatement or an dishonest opinion?

It's hard to be sure. The PCUSA does systematic surveys every year. I'm sure they've asked this, but the indexing is terrible, and I can't find the results. What I did find was a question on inclusivism, i.e. whether only those with faith in Christ can be saved. There's about an even split (splitting the "don't know" between the two answers). That is *not* saying that Christ doesn't matter; just that non-Christians may have been saved by Christ.

Note that result depends upon wording. It's pretty clear that many people will answer both that Christ is the only absolute truth and that all religions can lead to God. I think if you did systematic surveys you find similar oddities in all surveys, independent of subject.

One clear number is that virtually all leaders and members believe that God loves everyone. Again, this is not universalism, but it is a rejection of the traditional form of double predestination. But that was present in the 1903 "declarative statement" added to the Westminster Confession.

My sense is that full universalism is there, but a minority. Maybe 20% of members and parish pastors. (Ministers in "specialized ministries," i.e. not normal parish ministry are notoriously more liberal than anyone else.) My pastor is on the liberal end of the PCUSA, but he still doesn't believe in universalism, though he says that a number of his colleagues do. But this is probably one of the most liberal presbyteries.

I also doubt that there's much creeping. If anything, theological views have tended to get slightly more conservative over the last couple of decades, aside from homosexuality. If you look at documents from the early and middle 20th Cent, I don't think our basic theological perspective has changed that much.

 

[hedrick]

Tulipbee,

All denominations are broken in the sense that they are comprised of imperfect people. If we extend the metaphor a wee bit, the real question for most denominations is are they suffering from simple fractures or compound fractures with the bones exposed.

As this article (dated 2011) demonstrates the PC(USA) probably meets the description of the latter metaphor.

The article shows (1) that liberal beliefs are less popular than they were in the 1950s, and (2) that lots of people don't like the change in approach to gays. Of course surveys also show that younger Christians support the change.

Since I don't think the Gospel will always be popular, that doesn't indicate to me that we are making serious mistakes. Conservatives took the same position until they started getting popular. Then they starting thinking that unpopularity was a sign that we somehow aren't meeting people's needs (as if that was a criterion for truth).

 

[tulipbee]

It's hard to be sure. The PCUSA does systematic surveys every year. I'm sure they've asked this, but the indexing is terrible, and I can't find the results. What I did find was a question on inclusivism, i.e. whether only those with faith in Christ can be saved. There's about an even split (splitting the "don't know" between the two answers). That is *not* saying that Christ doesn't matter; just that non-Christians may have been saved by Christ. ....

----------------------------
"Inclusivism posits that even though the work of Christ is the only means of salvation, it does not follow that explicit knowledge of Christ is necessary in order for one to be saved.
---------------------------

I had to look up that word again. Being a stout Calvinist for years brings me to believe those that never heard of the Bible or any news from missionaries deep in Jungles or neverlands can still be called to Heaven by the Lord, Himself according to His Own pleasure and not according to fringe Presbyterians who think whom should or might be saved or not. If we're not sure whom can or are called, then I'm better off playing it safe.
I'm not familiar what part of the Westminister Confessions are still effective in the post modern era, in today's culture. When I was a young teen, I asked my step mother what are Presbyterians and she replied they they take the Bible and apply it to modern times. I believe you once told me of old problems with older denominations on slavery. Ordaining Women had identical problems the Old Presbyterians had on slavery. I see the culture changing so rapidly and see reasons why votes during moderation meetings are controversial. Although Protestants and Orthodoxes might be guilty in dividing the church, I don't believe we no longer can use,'' Church divideth can no longer stand". I still believe three elders votes for one church leader and that is the smallest church possible. I believe church properties or real estate are just legal business red tapes. I believe bigger churches with extra cash should help small churches with little cash inside the same denomination. This explains why some McDonalds still runs in poor areas where no one buys hamburgers. I think debts are forgiven in some churches.
Although Presby means a sort of government, it behaves like our troublesome political system. Those that disagrees with the congress wants to split and create their own government. Even though the Presby's might have split early due to slavery in the north and south, all I see on historical charts is that Pres merged back together and ended up with PCUSA. So, Hedrick, you frequently speak of votes which sound like the fairest approach to living together in our society. Many people don't want go by votes between Democrats and Republicans. Votes are the only way to make government work. The same should work in the government system within the Presbyterian Churches. The PCUSA voted on women's ordinations and the PCA disagrees and created schisms. ECO don't want EPC which are similar. I would like to ask AMR on controversial votes in PCA. Do PCA have close votes on their book of orders. I mean close vote like 55-45 votes on yea and nay. Would (old story) Federal Vision fight for more votes in the future? What are the vote numbers on women ordinations at the PCA moderation meetings?

I would wonder if the votes change so much to the point where PCUSA, PCA, EPC, ECO, OPC, etc would all merge back together in the far future. That would prove we should never have split from PCUSA or even PC in Netherlands. Renaming denominations brings more confusions or at least takes a lifetime to discover on their modern new belief systems. They fight Calvinism and then turn around and agree on Calvinism at the same time. They just don't like the word alone and makes it sound different. Arminians and Calvinists both end up with "The man is/get/was/will_be saved".

Even the reformed baptist changed the Westminster confessions to London Baptists confessions by scratching and adding.. Perhaps all the confessions needs alternations to fit our culture. This might show that God is at work in our today's time.


I'm still afraid to join other churches other than PCUSA even though the ordinations and marriages gets weirder and weirder that keeps me on the edge and not making friends fast enough. I don't want to repeat the same mistakes the old Pres made. I'm married with no kids but what am I really married for? Or got married for? Marriage is tricky today. Men and women are alike today.

 

[tulipbee]

The article shows (1) that liberal beliefs are less popular than they were in the 1950s, and (2) that lots of people don't like the change in approach to gays...

I read the article word for word but I woke up one morning forgetting what it was talking about. If it's vague or not strong enough, it don't make it into my memory.

The thing about the gays is not all of them have nor care for massagey sex that don't produce babies anyway. It makes me think how close the apostles were and how they live together while caring for each other more than we think. Today when we see two same sex side by side walk down the street most automatically call them gays. Would one prefer to be called gay rather than be called virgin. Virginity isn't anyones business and all they have left is to call themselves gay even though they didn't have sex with anyone at all. Some dumb classification on the term, "desire".

I think the extreme pink atheist gays isn't really in the picture inside the churches. Separation of church and state shows the marriage on the government side is a non religious term and more of a legal term among non Christians and other people. I don't think we have any business with atheist, agnostics, Jewish and other non Christian people. All I believe is that we're instructed to proclaim the Gospel to all and leave the rest up to God.
Somehow 10A allows anyone in the church and serve the church so the Gospel can be preach to them without convincing them to save themselves through works. But I still think it's weird for a extreme homosexual to preach at the pulpit where I go. How do I fight the votes without being unfair? Not go to church at all? Or join Churches that keeps schisms up forever.

 

[tulipbee]

...Note that result depends upon wording. It's pretty clear that many people will answer both that Christ is the only absolute truth and that all religions can lead to God. I think if you did systematic surveys you find similar oddities in all surveys, independent of subject.....

So many posts all over internet that shows people blow things out of proportion for the fun of gossip or for those that really believe in the posts they see like the readers of the National Enquirers or UFO magazines.
I find it tacky for the ECO make Creeping universalism to be number one on the reason to leave a church in their letters or at least it was the first topic. Number two might be on Jesus is the only way to Heaven and the PCUSA claims Jesus isn't the only way to heaven.

15 years ago I was looking for proof claims on statements made against the PCUSA and I found a few. I think if the votes are high enough, it becomes a fact even though 30 out of 100 didn't win. If many don't agrre with what 30 out of 100 votes on, then they go ahead a jump the gun and make claims against the old Presbyterians. 15 years ago many did predict which way the votes are going and it become true. I'll admit that.
Like the Pope said, we focus too much on issues that are not important as other issues. If the people have changed their attitudes against the congress and government through increasing high technologies, them the Christians are becoming more like them and lose focus.

Perhaps we really have forgotten the poor and the needy.

 

[hedrick]

I think the extreme pink atheist gays isn't really in the picture inside the churches. Separation of church and state shows the marriage on the government side is a non religious term and more of a legal term among non Christians and other people. I don't think we have any business with atheist, agnostics, Jewish and other non Christian people. All I believe is that we're instructed to proclaim the Gospel to all and leave the rest up to God.
Somehow 10A allows anyone in the church and serve the church so the Gospel can be preach to them without convincing them to save themselves through works. But I still think it's weird for a extreme homosexual to preach at the pulpit where I go. How do I fight the votes without being unfair? Not go to church at all? Or join Churches that keeps chasms up forever.

I don’t have much to say on most of your comments.

However 10A is not about getting people in the Church so they can hear preaching. Most churches, even conservative ones, are happy to have gays attend. It’s also not about avoiding salvation through works. I think it’s perfectly possible to preach justification and grace, and also that we are accountable to God for what we do.

10A, and all the discussion, is about ordaining leaders. We obviously wouldn’t ordain an “extreme pink atheist,” whatever that is. In our church we would only consider ordaining someone who is visibly a follower of Christ. Might such a person be in a gay relationship? In our congregation, yes. But our leaders don’t use the pulpit for pushing politics or ideology. I would expect a gay leader to be a committed Christian who happens to be gay.

 

[hedrick]

So many posts all over internet that shows people blow things out of proportion for the fun of gossip or for those that really believe in the posts they see like the readers of the National Enquirers or UFO magazines.
I find it tacky for the ECO make Creeping universalism to be number one on the reason to leave a church in their letters or at least it was the first topic. Number two might be on Jesus is the only way to Heaven and the PCUSA claims Jesus isn't the only way to heaven.

I’m not aware of universalism being a specific issue. Some of our more conservative members have been concerned about a whole variety of issues, ranging from Christ being the only way to be saved, to concerns about unorthodox statements about Christ, and worship practice that include non-Christian elements.

Some of this represents extreme views that have no wide influence in the PCUSA. Others reflect a very real difference. The PCUSA is not a conservative Church. We follow modern scholarship, we accept gays, we do not hold some traditional Presbyterian views.
People who want a church with the Westminster Confession as a standard belong elsewhere.

The ECO is the most liberal of the offshoots. They hold the same confessional documents as the PCUSA (i.e. the modern documents are included), and they ordain women. I haven’t seen them articulate any significant difference other than treatment of gays. Someone who wants a traditional Presbyterian church would be better off with the PCA or other denominations that demand reasonable conformity to Westminster.

To comment on another posting: I can see ECO and maybe EPC rejoining us. If the EPC continues to accept lots of PCUSA churches, they make that more likely. But there is likely to be a place for folks who hold Westminster strictly for some time. Maybe some of those groups will unify. Others can comment better on that.