Todd,
That is just the kind of thing I am happy to let God decide. Sorry to give such brief answers (compared to my responses to others (e.g., Bubba), but I just don't have sufficient insight into the issues you are raising. It seems that you have a biblical case. I can imagine arguments that some would raise against you, but they are not necessarily mine.
Blessings!
Steve
Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Steve,
I appreciate what you have taken the effort to write, and believe you have made very good arguments for your position on 1 Cor. 2:14 and Ephesians 2:8-9. Though, I think your presuppositions have determined your exegesis of Eph. 2:1-7 and the Ezek. 36 passages. I was sitting reading a commentary this morning and this Reform author made a very strong argument for regeneration must occur prior to some one coming to faith, using the same body of Scripture to support his view. The message goes out (the Gospel) but those who have ears to hear come to faith from this word, which I am sure your are very much aware of this thought. I could try and go "toe to toe" with you on these area's of differences, but reading a good Reform perspective like (Hodge, etc) would suffice if you so desired.
The more important issue, in my opinion, be you Arminian, Calvinist or even a Open Theist (like Paidion) is what one believes about God's love for His creation. This I have struggled with for over 30 years, and now I am convinced that God will eventually save all of His creation (1John 2:2, 1Timothy 4:10).
Grace, Bubba
I appreciate what you have taken the effort to write, and believe you have made very good arguments for your position on 1 Cor. 2:14 and Ephesians 2:8-9. Though, I think your presuppositions have determined your exegesis of Eph. 2:1-7 and the Ezek. 36 passages. I was sitting reading a commentary this morning and this Reform author made a very strong argument for regeneration must occur prior to some one coming to faith, using the same body of Scripture to support his view. The message goes out (the Gospel) but those who have ears to hear come to faith from this word, which I am sure your are very much aware of this thought. I could try and go "toe to toe" with you on these area's of differences, but reading a good Reform perspective like (Hodge, etc) would suffice if you so desired.
The more important issue, in my opinion, be you Arminian, Calvinist or even a Open Theist (like Paidion) is what one believes about God's love for His creation. This I have struggled with for over 30 years, and now I am convinced that God will eventually save all of His creation (1John 2:2, 1Timothy 4:10).
Grace, Bubba
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Hi Bubba,
You wrote,
As far as what Hodge or others may say about Ephesians 2 or Ezekiel 36, it seems to me that any Calvinist interpretation of these passages would have to import ideas from elsewhere (like the point you mentioned about those who have "ears to hear"). This is because the passages themselves do not contain anything in them that affirms any distinctively Calvinistic points. I think anyone can see that the verses I treated say just the things that I summarized them as saying (things that are neither specifically "Calvinistic" or "non-Calvinistic"). To read them in a non-Calvinistic way, I have to bring in ideas from other parts of scripture (like the fact that faith precedes regeneration, stated so often elsewhere). On the other hand, in order for Hodge to read them in a Calvinistic light, he has to bring in ideas from other passages (like the idea you mentioned).
The fact that no one can prove Calvinism to be true or false from these passages, by themselves (from the actual wording of the passages, without the help of outside information), neither speaks for or against Calvinism. However, it does mean that these passages do not provide cogent proof texts for one view or the other (though the Calvinists seem to think otherwise). My point is that Calvinists obviously subliminally read Calvinistic ideas into these very passages to such a degree that they mistakenly think the passages contain the thoughts they are reading into them. This would not be an entirely bad practice, if those distinctive Calvinistic ideas could be demonstrated to be true from other, better proof-texts. The problem is, these passages are themselves considered to be among the best proof-texts for the position!
My point is that, if you look carefully at all the other proof-texts for Calvinism, you will find the same to be true of each of them—namely, so long as one is willing to assume that all of them, collectively, make a strong case for Calvinism, then it does not seem to be noticed that none of them actually makes such a case individually. This can be shown by an analysis of every Calvinist proof-text. Without meaning any insult to Reformed theologians, a person with no agenda (like myself) can reason: "If data A, B, C, D, E, F and G each have a value of zero in establishing a certain contention, then the combined value of all of those points, in proving that contention, is also zero.
By the way, the fact that the Gospel is only received by those who have ears to hear, and is rejected by those who do not, is quite true, but makes no Calvinistic point, unless we can show that this condition (ears vs. no ears to hear) is imposed upon each group unilaterally by a sovereign decree from God, and is not a result of prior sins on their part. Now, the Bible does speak of God blinding and hardening (and thus "deafening") some people who are specifically under divine judgment—e.g., Pharaoh and the Jews of Jesus' day. As I said, the very fact that God had to take this measure in order to prevent these folks from repenting suggests that people, in their natural state, are capable of repenting. It takes God's special intervention, in cases where God wants to judge some particular person or group, to give them a blindness and deafness that will prevent them from "turning and being healed" (Matt.13:15).
Hodge, in making the point that some do and some don't have "ears to hear" is falling into the same practice I mentioned above. Because he starts with the Calvinist assumption that all unbelievers have been hardened and blinded (which is not stated in scripture, and seems to be refuted by God's taking special action to bring about this condition in certain cases), he has no trouble reading that notion into passages about "ears to hear," and he does not even notice (nor, apparently, do many of his readers) that the scripture never indicates that the "no ears to hear" is the default condition of all unregenerate people. The Bible, rather, suggests that it is an acquired condition, as a result of stubborn rejection of truth encountered earlier in life (see Romans 1 and 2 Thessalonians 2).
Try out this theory on every proof-text that is given about total depravity, and see if I am incorrect:
For example, Genesis 6:5 describes the people in Noah's day, just before the flood. God saw that "every intent of the thoughts of [their] heart was only evil continually." Calvinists (for reasons that entirely escape me!) have always quoted this verse as teaching total depravity. I guess it does teach that—about a single depraved generation. It does not describe every man born since Adam. The statement is intended to tell us why God, at that time, felt He could no longer delay the judgment of the flood. People had become exceptionally evil. Have there been other generations that were equally evil? Probably. Jesus said some very unflattering things about his own generation. But again, the description of one generation does not automatically speak of all people who ever lived. Think of how a prophet might describe the moral state of the current generation of Americans. Then ask, would that description equally describe our grandparents' generation?
Jeremiah says that his generation (just before God carried Judah into Babylon) was especially evil. He said that their "heart was deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" (Jer.17:9), and that reforming such people, who had become so accustomed to doing evil, was as likely as changing the skin color of an Ethiopian, or the spots of a leopard (Jer.13:23). But what tortured logic entitles the Calvinist to take these statements, and apply them to every man who ever lived—from birth? They read this idea into a passages that makes no suggestion of it, and then transform them into key proof-texts for their position!
We mentioned Ephesians 2 already. They see the expression "dead in trespasses and sins" and automatically assume this speaks of a universal birth condition which precludes unregenerate men from believing the Gospel. This becomes their favorite proof text for the point. It never occurs to them that Paul never defines "dead in trespasses" in the manner that they define it, and even refutes their definition in the parallel passage in Colossians 2, which tells us that people come out of this condition of death by believing! It is like the statement in 2 Corinthians 3 that "the veil is taken away from the heart" when someone turns to the Lord.
Some Calvinists have used Ephesians 4:18-19, which describes Gentiles (specifically pagans in Ephesus, which used to include his readers) as "having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." The Calvinist reads the verses and then argues, "how can someone who has their 'understanding darkened,' and who has 'blindness of heart,' and who is 'past feeling' ever make a 'free choice' to love God?"
It is a good question, in itself. Perhaps Paul would say that those in that condition can't choose God any longer (but I am not sure if Paul would say this, since he neither says it nor does it have any relevance to any point he is making in the passage). But my counter question would be, "How can someone be described as 'past feeling' from birth? Don't you have to get 'past' an earlier point of being able to feel in order to be 'past feeling'? If this is the default condition of all babies from birth, why say they are 'past feeling,' when you could simply say, 'unfeeling'?" That Paul is describing benighted, blinded and alienated people who have given themselves over to really bad sins (apparently a good description of the general state of Gentile pagans in Ephesus) need not be controversial. The question is, where do we find Paul saying that this is the original condition of all people (or even of these people) at birth? It is an assumption brought to the text, which then is thought to transform the text into a proof of the point being imported into it!
I could take every verse that the Calvinists use, and subject it to the same kind of examination (if I had the time), and we would find the same phenomenon in the way Calvinists import what they want to see, and then pretend that the verse proves their point. Do non-Calvinists do the same? No doubt they often do. That is why we need to ask ourselves, when we hear an argument from a scripture, "What assumptions are being imported by the debater in order to make the passage support his view?"
Sometimes (hopefully, often) we may find that nothing at all is being imported by the debater, and he is simply reading what is plainly asserted by the text. Other times, we will find that he is importing an idea from other parts of scripture, and, upon examination, we will have to conclude that this is justified and necessary from the clear content of the other passages. However, too often, we find that the idea being imported into one text is being justified by importing the same idea into the second text that is being brought in for support, and so-on through the whole structure of proof-texts for the argument. We must be on our guard for that tendency—especially if it is being practiced by those whom we have already decided to see as "orthodox" in their theology.
You wrote,
I completely agree with you on the primary importance of that issue. It is that very point that seems to make the Calvinistic doctrines so contrary to the revealed character of this loving God.The more important issue, in my opinion, be you Arminian, Calvinist or even a Open Theist (like Paidion) is what one believes about God's love for His creation. This I have struggled with for over 30 years, and now I am convinced that God will eventually save all of His creation.
As far as what Hodge or others may say about Ephesians 2 or Ezekiel 36, it seems to me that any Calvinist interpretation of these passages would have to import ideas from elsewhere (like the point you mentioned about those who have "ears to hear"). This is because the passages themselves do not contain anything in them that affirms any distinctively Calvinistic points. I think anyone can see that the verses I treated say just the things that I summarized them as saying (things that are neither specifically "Calvinistic" or "non-Calvinistic"). To read them in a non-Calvinistic way, I have to bring in ideas from other parts of scripture (like the fact that faith precedes regeneration, stated so often elsewhere). On the other hand, in order for Hodge to read them in a Calvinistic light, he has to bring in ideas from other passages (like the idea you mentioned).
The fact that no one can prove Calvinism to be true or false from these passages, by themselves (from the actual wording of the passages, without the help of outside information), neither speaks for or against Calvinism. However, it does mean that these passages do not provide cogent proof texts for one view or the other (though the Calvinists seem to think otherwise). My point is that Calvinists obviously subliminally read Calvinistic ideas into these very passages to such a degree that they mistakenly think the passages contain the thoughts they are reading into them. This would not be an entirely bad practice, if those distinctive Calvinistic ideas could be demonstrated to be true from other, better proof-texts. The problem is, these passages are themselves considered to be among the best proof-texts for the position!
My point is that, if you look carefully at all the other proof-texts for Calvinism, you will find the same to be true of each of them—namely, so long as one is willing to assume that all of them, collectively, make a strong case for Calvinism, then it does not seem to be noticed that none of them actually makes such a case individually. This can be shown by an analysis of every Calvinist proof-text. Without meaning any insult to Reformed theologians, a person with no agenda (like myself) can reason: "If data A, B, C, D, E, F and G each have a value of zero in establishing a certain contention, then the combined value of all of those points, in proving that contention, is also zero.
By the way, the fact that the Gospel is only received by those who have ears to hear, and is rejected by those who do not, is quite true, but makes no Calvinistic point, unless we can show that this condition (ears vs. no ears to hear) is imposed upon each group unilaterally by a sovereign decree from God, and is not a result of prior sins on their part. Now, the Bible does speak of God blinding and hardening (and thus "deafening") some people who are specifically under divine judgment—e.g., Pharaoh and the Jews of Jesus' day. As I said, the very fact that God had to take this measure in order to prevent these folks from repenting suggests that people, in their natural state, are capable of repenting. It takes God's special intervention, in cases where God wants to judge some particular person or group, to give them a blindness and deafness that will prevent them from "turning and being healed" (Matt.13:15).
Hodge, in making the point that some do and some don't have "ears to hear" is falling into the same practice I mentioned above. Because he starts with the Calvinist assumption that all unbelievers have been hardened and blinded (which is not stated in scripture, and seems to be refuted by God's taking special action to bring about this condition in certain cases), he has no trouble reading that notion into passages about "ears to hear," and he does not even notice (nor, apparently, do many of his readers) that the scripture never indicates that the "no ears to hear" is the default condition of all unregenerate people. The Bible, rather, suggests that it is an acquired condition, as a result of stubborn rejection of truth encountered earlier in life (see Romans 1 and 2 Thessalonians 2).
Try out this theory on every proof-text that is given about total depravity, and see if I am incorrect:
For example, Genesis 6:5 describes the people in Noah's day, just before the flood. God saw that "every intent of the thoughts of [their] heart was only evil continually." Calvinists (for reasons that entirely escape me!) have always quoted this verse as teaching total depravity. I guess it does teach that—about a single depraved generation. It does not describe every man born since Adam. The statement is intended to tell us why God, at that time, felt He could no longer delay the judgment of the flood. People had become exceptionally evil. Have there been other generations that were equally evil? Probably. Jesus said some very unflattering things about his own generation. But again, the description of one generation does not automatically speak of all people who ever lived. Think of how a prophet might describe the moral state of the current generation of Americans. Then ask, would that description equally describe our grandparents' generation?
Jeremiah says that his generation (just before God carried Judah into Babylon) was especially evil. He said that their "heart was deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" (Jer.17:9), and that reforming such people, who had become so accustomed to doing evil, was as likely as changing the skin color of an Ethiopian, or the spots of a leopard (Jer.13:23). But what tortured logic entitles the Calvinist to take these statements, and apply them to every man who ever lived—from birth? They read this idea into a passages that makes no suggestion of it, and then transform them into key proof-texts for their position!
We mentioned Ephesians 2 already. They see the expression "dead in trespasses and sins" and automatically assume this speaks of a universal birth condition which precludes unregenerate men from believing the Gospel. This becomes their favorite proof text for the point. It never occurs to them that Paul never defines "dead in trespasses" in the manner that they define it, and even refutes their definition in the parallel passage in Colossians 2, which tells us that people come out of this condition of death by believing! It is like the statement in 2 Corinthians 3 that "the veil is taken away from the heart" when someone turns to the Lord.
Some Calvinists have used Ephesians 4:18-19, which describes Gentiles (specifically pagans in Ephesus, which used to include his readers) as "having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." The Calvinist reads the verses and then argues, "how can someone who has their 'understanding darkened,' and who has 'blindness of heart,' and who is 'past feeling' ever make a 'free choice' to love God?"
It is a good question, in itself. Perhaps Paul would say that those in that condition can't choose God any longer (but I am not sure if Paul would say this, since he neither says it nor does it have any relevance to any point he is making in the passage). But my counter question would be, "How can someone be described as 'past feeling' from birth? Don't you have to get 'past' an earlier point of being able to feel in order to be 'past feeling'? If this is the default condition of all babies from birth, why say they are 'past feeling,' when you could simply say, 'unfeeling'?" That Paul is describing benighted, blinded and alienated people who have given themselves over to really bad sins (apparently a good description of the general state of Gentile pagans in Ephesus) need not be controversial. The question is, where do we find Paul saying that this is the original condition of all people (or even of these people) at birth? It is an assumption brought to the text, which then is thought to transform the text into a proof of the point being imported into it!
I could take every verse that the Calvinists use, and subject it to the same kind of examination (if I had the time), and we would find the same phenomenon in the way Calvinists import what they want to see, and then pretend that the verse proves their point. Do non-Calvinists do the same? No doubt they often do. That is why we need to ask ourselves, when we hear an argument from a scripture, "What assumptions are being imported by the debater in order to make the passage support his view?"
Sometimes (hopefully, often) we may find that nothing at all is being imported by the debater, and he is simply reading what is plainly asserted by the text. Other times, we will find that he is importing an idea from other parts of scripture, and, upon examination, we will have to conclude that this is justified and necessary from the clear content of the other passages. However, too often, we find that the idea being imported into one text is being justified by importing the same idea into the second text that is being brought in for support, and so-on through the whole structure of proof-texts for the argument. We must be on our guard for that tendency—especially if it is being practiced by those whom we have already decided to see as "orthodox" in their theology.
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Steve,
I find what you wrote fascinating, and really can not find fault. You have given me a lot to consider. The last few years have been a total shift in much that I had felt was "written in stone", i.e. eternal punishment, election, reprobate and etc. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to reason with me.
Bubba
I find what you wrote fascinating, and really can not find fault. You have given me a lot to consider. The last few years have been a total shift in much that I had felt was "written in stone", i.e. eternal punishment, election, reprobate and etc. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to reason with me.
Bubba
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
I have appreciated the dialogue, Brother, and appreciate your teachable spirit. I believe the same thing you do about what matters most (and probably on a lot of lesser things too!). It's good to have you with us here.
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Steve,steve wrote:Todd,
That is just the kind of thing I am happy to let God decide. Sorry to give such brief answers (compared to my responses to others (e.g., Bubba), but I just don't have sufficient insight into the issues you are raising. It seems that you have a biblical case. I can imagine arguments that some would raise against you, but they are not necessarily mine.
Blessings!
Steve
I appreciate your response and understand why you would not have a lengthy answer. This subject might be outside of Biblical teaching, but I'm not so sure that it is. If the New Testament only deals with those individuals who have had the Gospel preached to them, then it only deals with a very small minority of mankind. That just doesn't seem likely to me.
It may be that salvation is available to everyone in every nation through the work of the Holy Spirit, whether or not they hear the Word spoken by a preacher or evangelist, or read the Bible for themselves. The prophet Joel said that God would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh. Perhaps this really means every man, woman and child. John 1:9 tells us that Christ gives light to every man. Also, the fact that the Gentiles in Rom 2:14-15 had the law written on their hearts, may indicate that all Gentiles - not just Christian Gentiles - are subject to the Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin (things against the Law of Christ). Is it not written that we would no longer have to teach our neighbor or our brother to "know the Lord" because everyone would know HIm? Perhaps that knowledge comes from the Spirit to everyone.
Are we not told that all things have been made subject to Christ? Perhaps this is by the action of the Spirit rewarding obedience and good works, and punishing those who neglect the good and choose evil. John the Baptist, who was receiving those who were repenting, said, "who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come." This he said speaking of the advent of the Holy Spirit who brings wrath upon those who do not repent, and life to those who are obedient.
I think God is more interested in having us yield to the Spirit's leading than to making declarations of faith which are not followed by actions which show repentance and love for others. People who may be ignorant of the Bible may be full of love and kindness because they have "heard" the Spirit speaking to their heart and responded willingly and joyfully and thereby reap an eternal reward from the Father. This makes sense to me.
I am not saying that biblical knowledge is worthless - by no means! Having a correct understanding of the scriptures can aid our walk with Christ and serve to tune our senses to discern both good and evil. But I have also seen that there are many unfruitful doctrines which are being taught that bring division and strife. Christianity should be all about loving and helping others.
Todd
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
I have heard accounts of the revival in the Hebrides Islands, and how that when the Spirit fell in the church, it also fell in a community 5 miles away so that everyone in that community repented and became believers without hearing the preaching.
I have heard critics of such things say that these things cant be believed because "faith comes by hearing" the Word. While I am sure that faith DOES come by hearing the Word, I am not sure that this means faith can ONLY come by hearing the word.
I think I heard Steve G mention in one of his lectures about a muslim village in Algeria, I believe, where everyone in the village had a dream of Jesus telling them that He was the only way (or something along those lines) and the entire village became christian, w/o ever being preached to.
So I dont think God is limited in all in how he can deal with people.
TK
I have heard critics of such things say that these things cant be believed because "faith comes by hearing" the Word. While I am sure that faith DOES come by hearing the Word, I am not sure that this means faith can ONLY come by hearing the word.
I think I heard Steve G mention in one of his lectures about a muslim village in Algeria, I believe, where everyone in the village had a dream of Jesus telling them that He was the only way (or something along those lines) and the entire village became christian, w/o ever being preached to.
So I dont think God is limited in all in how he can deal with people.
TK
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Hi Todd,
You offered several suggestions and questions that I thought I might briefly respond to. Most of them are not strictly about universalism, but more to the question of what many call the "wider hope theory," which suggests that the opportunity to repent and be saved may exist even beyond the boundaries of the regions where the Gospel has been preached—that is, that people might favorably respond to whatever "lesser light" they have, and God will accept them on that basis. This view strikes me as almost certainly true, though it makes no claim that every person will make a favorable response to that light, and so it is not the same as universalism. Here are some of the points to which, it seemed, you were desiring a response:
I consider this to be a very important text in considering the "wider hope theory."
Or, you may be saying, "All things are subject to Jesus [full stop. Next unrelated point:] John's preaching suggests that even the wicked Pharisees were not without something of the Spirit's conviction, since they somehow had been 'warned' (by the Spirit?) to flee from the coming wrath."
I would find the implications of either meaning worthy of consideration.
You offered several suggestions and questions that I thought I might briefly respond to. Most of them are not strictly about universalism, but more to the question of what many call the "wider hope theory," which suggests that the opportunity to repent and be saved may exist even beyond the boundaries of the regions where the Gospel has been preached—that is, that people might favorably respond to whatever "lesser light" they have, and God will accept them on that basis. This view strikes me as almost certainly true, though it makes no claim that every person will make a favorable response to that light, and so it is not the same as universalism. Here are some of the points to which, it seemed, you were desiring a response:
This is not unreasonable—and may, in fact, be the only reasonable position that can be held to be consistent with the character of God, and the teaching of scripture. Of course, it does not prove universalism.It may be that salvation is available to everyone in every nation through the work of the Holy Spirit, whether or not they hear the Word spoken by a preacher or evangelist, or read the Bible for themselves.
If pouring out His Spirit takes the form that it did at Pentecost, and if "all flesh" means what you suggest, then universal reconciliation would appear to be proven by this single text. The weakness of the argument would be that, although the seemingly sweeping phrases, "all flesh" and "no flesh" normally refer to every last man woman and child, yet they are sometimes used with some limitation on their referents (e.g., all those in Jerusalem—Matt.24:22; or all those threatened by the Babylonian expansion—Jer.12:12; 25:31; 45:5). One could argue that "all flesh" in this case means "all those, of any race, who hear about and embrace Christ." I do not claim that this limitation is required, but it is certainly possible.The prophet Joel said that God would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh. Perhaps this really means every man, woman and child.
.John 1:9 tells us that Christ gives light to every man
I consider this to be a very important text in considering the "wider hope theory."
My own understanding of Romans 2:14-15 (contra most commentaries) is that, when Paul points to the Gentiles who have the law written on their hearts, it is actually a reference specifically to Christian Gentiles. It fits Paul's argument more perfectly to see it this way, and there is other scripture (Jeremiah 31:31-34/ Hebrews 8) to suggest that having the law written in one's heart is the special privilege that comes with being in on the New Covenant.Also, the fact that the Gentiles in Rom 2:14-15 had the law written on their hearts, may indicate that all Gentiles - not just Christian Gentiles - are subject to the Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin (things against the Law of Christ).
In this passage (the same one that talks about the law written on the hearts—Jer.31:31-34), I have understood this to be limited, in the context, to those who are in the New Covenant. They will all know the Lord for themselves, unlike those under the Old Covenant who had to be taught by the Levitical priests.Is it not written that we would no longer have to teach our neighbor or our brother to "know the Lord" because everyone would know HIm? Perhaps that knowledge comes from the Spirit to everyone.
I am not fully grasping your point. It sounds like your example of John the Baptist is modifying the implications of the first statement. I may be misunderstanding. It sounds like you may be saying, "Even though all things are made subject to Christ, John's preaching suggests that some may be eliminated from the picture by God's judgment upon them, meaning only that all those who are left will be subject to Him."Are we not told that all things have been made subject to Christ? Perhaps this is by the action of the Spirit rewarding obedience and good works, and punishing those who neglect the good and choose evil. John the Baptist, who was receiving those who were repenting, said, "who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come." This he said speaking of the advent of the Holy Spirit who brings wrath upon those who do not repent, and life to those who are obedient.
Or, you may be saying, "All things are subject to Jesus [full stop. Next unrelated point:] John's preaching suggests that even the wicked Pharisees were not without something of the Spirit's conviction, since they somehow had been 'warned' (by the Spirit?) to flee from the coming wrath."
I would find the implications of either meaning worthy of consideration.
You won't find many here that will get into a brawl with you over this point, I think.I think God is more interested in having us yield to the Spirit's leading than to making declarations of faith which are not followed by actions which show repentance and love for others.
And to me as well. The examples given by TK seem to be harmonious with this suggestion.People who may be ignorant of the Bible may be full of love and kindness because they have "heard" the Spirit speaking to their heart and responded willingly and joyfully and thereby reap an eternal reward from the Father. This makes sense to me.
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Steve,steve wrote:My own understanding of Romans 2:14-15 (contra most commentaries) is that, when Paul points to the Gentiles who have the law written on their hearts, it is actually a reference specifically to Christian Gentiles. It fits Paul's argument more perfectly to see it this way, and there is other scripture (Jeremiah 31:31-34/ Hebrews 8) to suggest that having the law written in one's heart is the special privilege that comes with being in on the New Covenant.Also, the fact that the Gentiles in Rom 2:14-15 had the law written on their hearts, may indicate that all Gentiles - not just Christian Gentiles - are subject to the Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin (things against the Law of Christ).
I do not disagree that Rom 2 is referring to Christian Gentiles, but the scripture makes no claim that having "the law written on the heart" is limited only to Christian Gentiles.
Perhaps everyone is in on the New Covenant. I think that is the point. No one needs to be taught because all already know Him. As I see it, this could only be possible through the work of the Spirit. They "know" him in the sense that His law is written on their hearts, even though some choose not to obey and are condemned (convicted).and there is other scripture (Jeremiah 31:31-34/ Hebrews 8) to suggest that having the law written in one's heart is the special privilege that comes with being in on the New Covenant.
My point here is that the Spirit is at work in everyone's heart either condemning or affirming their motives and actions. The condemnation of the Spirit brings wrath as warned by John the Baptist. Those who repent are affirmed and receive blessing. In this way all people are subject to the authority of Christ. I believe that when the Bible speaks of rendering to every man according to his works, it is referring to this very thing (the work of the Spirit). This is also what I believe John 5:28-29 is talking about. When Jesus speaks of the "hour" that was coming he was referring to the advent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The resurrection from the graves is not a physical one but spiritual (as the context of the preceding verses suggests).I am not fully grasping your point. It sounds like your example of John the Baptist is modifying the implications of the first statement. I may be misunderstanding. It sounds like you may be saying, "Even though all things are made subject to Christ, John's preaching suggests that some may be eliminated from the picture by God's judgment upon them, meaning only that all those who are left will be subject to Him."Are we not told that all things have been made subject to Christ? Perhaps this is by the action of the Spirit rewarding obedience and good works, and punishing those who neglect the good and choose evil. John the Baptist, who was receiving those who were repenting, said, "who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come." This he said speaking of the advent of the Holy Spirit who brings wrath upon those who do not repent, and life to those who are obedient.
Or, you may be saying, "All things are subject to Jesus [full stop. Next unrelated point:] John's preaching suggests that even the wicked Pharisees were not without something of the Spirit's conviction, since they somehow had been 'warned' (by the Spirit?) to flee from the coming wrath."
I would find the implications of either meaning worthy of consideration.
I did not make clear how this relates to universalism. As I see it (today at least) is that the Spirit gives life for those who obey, and gives condemnation for the disobedient - blessing and cursing. This happens during our lifetime. All judgment and punishment will be completed by the time Christ returns and all enemies of Christ will have been destroyed except death. Then comes the resurrection (the destruction of death, the last enemy) when the Sons of God rise first unto immortality, followed by the rest of creation unto that same glorious liberty as the Sons of God (immortality). Plainly put, I don't believe there will be any post-resurrection punishment; however, I do believe that it is likely that the Sons of God will have a different status or reward in the resurrection.
So, in one sense, salvation refers to being delivered from the condemnation of the Spirit. This is only achieved through faith and obedience and relates to our present life. And in another sense, salvation refers to being delivered from death unto immortality which Christ secured for all mankind through the sacrifice of Himself.
Todd
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Todd,
Are you sure you are not confusing the work of the conscience, that God has placed in all people, with the work of the Holy Spirit? You make no mention of our conscience.
Also consider:
Romans 10:8-16 (New King James Version):
8 . But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
14. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15. And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:
“ How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
16. But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” 17. So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
It seems apparent that Paul did not conceive of any answer other than "they can't" to his three rhetorical questions in verse 14.
Galatians 3:21-27 (New King James Version)
21. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Do you believe there is a law(s) given whereby those who adhere to it are saved? The Law was "holy, just, and good". Is there another one that is easier to keep or somehow more able to save?
Galatians 2:20-21 (New King James Version)
20. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”
It is my understanding that Paul is stating a principle here - that is, if man can be saved by obedience (even one person, for then all potentially can) or lawkeeping, then Jesus died for nothing. Do you see it otherwise?
Acts 5:32 (New King James Version)
32. And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
And here we see in the Greek text that the obedience is an on-going result of the indwelling Holy Spirit, which was given prior to the obedience. Do you believe that all men are indwelt by the Holy Spirit? If so, wouldn't all men obey God? Peter is saying the obedience is the sign of the indwelling Spirit.
Do you believe people who despise the cross of Christ, and yet abound in good deeds are justified in the sight of God?
Are you sure you are not confusing the work of the conscience, that God has placed in all people, with the work of the Holy Spirit? You make no mention of our conscience.
Also consider:
Romans 10:8-16 (New King James Version):
8 . But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
14. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15. And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:
“ How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
16. But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” 17. So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
It seems apparent that Paul did not conceive of any answer other than "they can't" to his three rhetorical questions in verse 14.
Galatians 3:21-27 (New King James Version)
21. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Do you believe there is a law(s) given whereby those who adhere to it are saved? The Law was "holy, just, and good". Is there another one that is easier to keep or somehow more able to save?
Galatians 2:20-21 (New King James Version)
20. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”
It is my understanding that Paul is stating a principle here - that is, if man can be saved by obedience (even one person, for then all potentially can) or lawkeeping, then Jesus died for nothing. Do you see it otherwise?
Acts 5:32 (New King James Version)
32. And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
And here we see in the Greek text that the obedience is an on-going result of the indwelling Holy Spirit, which was given prior to the obedience. Do you believe that all men are indwelt by the Holy Spirit? If so, wouldn't all men obey God? Peter is saying the obedience is the sign of the indwelling Spirit.
Do you believe people who despise the cross of Christ, and yet abound in good deeds are justified in the sight of God?