How Will They Be Saved?

[Homer]

Universalists, where are your answers?

Romans 4:3
New King James Version (NKJV)

For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

Note that Abraham did not simply acknowledge there is a God, but he believed God. After facing Christ at judgement and being condemned, and being cast into wherever they go, how can they be said to believe God in any sense of the biblical definition of faith?

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

How will they be saved apart from faith?

Hebrews 11:6
New King James Version (NKJV)

But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

[steve7150]

Universalists, where are your answers?










Homer,
Excuse me but i work so i'll get back to you shortly. Some examples were given to you of saved people who were visibly shown Christ and instantly repented and believed. Were they special people Homer, were they more godly people, anyway i'll be back.
BTW "universalist" is a misleading term in that it is incomplete and easily gets confused with non-Christian beliefs, i guess you did'nt realize that.

[Homer]

Steve7150,

Thanks for your reply, but there is a difference in a person coming to faith in this life, however they are brought to faith - they must still perservere, believing His promises of the reward for their struggles, for however much life they have left. As I wrote earlier:

I anticipated those arguments. But there is a vast difference. Jesus' "faithful (Grk. pistos) until death" anticipates a life, however much remains, of testing of the believer's faith. It is correct that saving faith has the aspect of trust; pistos (faithful) means believing, trusting. Those who saw the risen Lord, including Paul, had much to endure. And they had to believe, and trust, that through it all Jesus would be with them and would come back and reward them, just as He (and Peter) said, "and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away", (1 Peter 5:4).

Even though Paul was knocked to the ground on the way to Damascus, I believe he still had free will. Many saw Jesus' miracles yet did not believe, including those who came to arrest Him and also "hit the ground" in John 18.

[mdh]

Homer,

I sense you have a real passion (obsession?) with disproving universalism. I feel bad for you.

Using the type of logic you are using it would seem rather difficult for Jesus to have pleased His Father, since He had been in His presence before coming to earth, and well knew His character, ability, plan for rewarding, etc. Yet we are told that His Father was very pleased with Him.

It would seem difficult for us to please God after the resurrection since we will also have then stood before Him (and received our rewards).

I do not think the writer of Hebrews is saying that only faith pleases God, but that things done in a condition where faith (or trust) is absent are not pleasing to Him.

Will I cease to trust God after the resurrection? Of course not.

Also, I believe you have stated that your current understanding of what Hell is like is that it is a place of darkness, absent the discernible presence of God. In such a state, I would think it possible for a person to trust in something they could not see. They could regret their misdeeds, desire to live a holy life, and hope and trust that a merciful God would deliver them from this condition, surrenduring to the Lordship of the Christ.

With your current understanding of scripture, it would certainly take an act of faith on YOUR part if you were in that condition, wouldn't it?

So if faith is still possible, it just might be possible for justification, right? At least we are not told otherwise. So one can hope (trust )

Blessings,
Mike

[steve]

Homer,

I don't think you have adequately dispensed with my earlier point. I said that seeing irrefutable evidence does not make faith impossible, and I provided examples (which you say you anticipated) of many people, in the Gospels and Acts, who came to faith only after (and because of) seeing irrefutable evidence. Faith was still a matter of choice for them, since we also read of people who saw similar irrefutable evidence and still persisted in unbelief.

This seems to answer your initial objection that people seeing Christ alive after they die will have not basis for faith, and cannot, therefore, be saved. But I have said that they would, in such a case, be not significantly different from the apostles themselves, who did not believe Jesus had risen (despite His numerous predictions that He would rise, and the reports of the women who had seen Him risen) until they actually saw Him risen for themselves.

You said, if I understand you correctly, that there is a difference in that saving faith must withstand many tests of our faithfulness in life before we die, and those who would see Jesus post-mortem would have no such life in which to prove their faithfulness.

But this answer seems to indicate that the faith of the thief on the cross (or any other deathbed convert) could not save him, because he had no opportunity to live a life of faithfulness.

My understanding is that faith, if encountered some time before death, will in fact be manifested in obedience and perseverance through the trials of life. However, it is not the occasions of obedience or of victory that secure salvation. They manifest a faith that saved the believer at the moment of his conversion. If he had died immediately after that conversion, he would have died reconciled to God by his faith in Christ.

So what advantage is there in surviving after conversion, and enduring the tests and trials of life? Much every way. The deathbed (or post-mortem) convert would have several disadvantages:

1. He would have lived his life without the knowledge of God, which to find, the Bible says, is worth more than finding hidden treasures;

2. He would have wasted his life—by failing to glorify God and failing to fulfill the purpose and service for which he was created;

3. He has lost the opportunity to reign with Christ, for Paul says, "If we endure, we shall reign with Him" (2 Tim.2:12)

4. He will have brought grief to his Maker, and must live with that knowledge.

[steve7150]

Again I question the value of a "faith" that is an admission of that which is beyond any doubt, and a confession which is made under compulsion. How could that possibly bring praise, honor, and glory to God? Under compulsion and faced with the obvious, they are forced to "stop calling God a liar" (Francis Schaeffer).







Scripture does not say that every tongue will confess Christ as Lord under compulsion. In fact a confession that's not voluntary is not a confession at all. People who are saved after death will be tested and perhaps the testing will be more difficult then this age. We just don't know but perhaps the milleneum period is for this testing. I guess it's easier in a sense to believe in eternal hell or destruction because it's black and white and simple, nothing to think about. For example a man believed in Christ for 50 years, but after his family was killed in a fire , he suddenly lost his faith and a week later died in a car crash, well he will spend eternity in darkness or be destroyed. On the other hand Hugh Hefner discovers Christ while he has a fatal disease and has a week to live , yes he is spending eternity in heaven because at the moment of death he believed. That moment , that second when you die is all faith really comes down to in determining your eternal destiny. That's the orthodox teaching , your last living second of life on earth, what is it you believe at that singular moment?

[Homer]

Mike,

I sense you have a real passion (obsession?) with disproving universalism. I feel bad for you.

No need to feel bad at all. Actually, I am a person who does not easily give up at most anything I try to accomplish. Recently my wife wanted a sofa table so I designed and made one out of "bird's eye" maple in my shop. We had unusual difficuly getting the finish just right. She was ready to give up but I started over three times and it turned out very nice.

One of the most knowledgeable people I have encountered at this forum was once part of this discussion and gave up long ago. PM'd me and said universalism is absurd. I'm sure he has made better use of his time than me but I don't think the issue has been fully explored, as in the subject of this thread.

So if faith is still possible, it just might be possible for justification, right?

No, I do not think faith as described in the scripture will be possible.

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

You wrote:

I don't think you have adequately dispensed with my earlier point. I said that seeing irrefutable evidence does not make faith impossible, and I provided examples (which you say you anticipated) of many people, in the Gospels and Acts, who came to faith only after (and because of) seeing irrefutable evidence. Faith was still a matter of choice for them, since we also read of people who saw similar irrefutable evidence and still persisted in unbelief.

Ah, but believing Jesus rose from the dead, having seen Him, is not the end of faith. His promise to return and bestow the reward of "the crown of life" is still future. Paul wrote of this:

Titus 1:1-2
New King James Version (NKJV)
1. Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, 2. in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,

So Paul, and all Christians, look forward in hope, by faith, to what He has promised, even though mockers may say it will never happen, as they did in Paul's day.

Neither Paul, the other Apostles, the thief on the cross, or you or I possess apodictic proof of these future things. As Hebrews 11 indicates faith involves the unseen. All who come to Christ must persevere in faith until death, including those who saw the risen Lord. (It would be interesting to know if any of the hundreds who saw Him after the resurrection fell away.)

This seems to answer your initial objection that people seeing Christ alive after they die will have not basis for faith, and cannot, therefore, be saved. But I have said that they would, in such a case, be not significantly different from the apostles themselves, who did not believe Jesus had risen (despite His numerous predictions that He would rise, and the reports of the women who had seen Him risen) until they actually saw Him risen for themselves.

After the Apostles saw the risen Christ they still had to have faith until death. After judgement day all persons will have apodictic proof of all things tesified in the gospel, and not before. Then it will not be a question of faith but of sight.

I concern myself not at all with the question whether people who have never heard of Christ will be finally lost. I have complete confidence that God will deal with them justly. Perhaps the Catholic theologians will be correct in their belief that only those who reject Christ will finally be lost. The case for purgatory has probably as good of biblical support as universalism.

What I am interested in is seeing how a person might be saved who has persisted in rejection of Christ in this life, in essence calling God a liar, then confessing who Jesus is when the person has irrefutable proof. That seems to be almost an insult to God, rather than bringing Him any glory.

[steve7150]

After the Apostles saw the risen Christ they still had to have faith until death. After judgement day all persons will have apodictic proof of all things tesified in the gospel, and not before. Then it will not be a question of faith but of sight.

I concern myself not at all with the question whether people who have never heard of Christ will be finally lost. I have complete confidence that God will deal with them justly. Perhaps the Catholic theologians will be correct in their belief that only those who reject Christ will finally be lost. The case for purgatory has probably as good of biblical support as universalism.





Once they saw the risen Christ plus they later saw him rise into the heavens they already had apodictic faith, it had nothing to do with judgment day. I'm glad you're not concerned with those who never heard of Christ but the conversation is about scripture and orthodox Christianity boils down to what you believe in your last moment of life.
Obviously your comments about Christian Universalism are meant to be mocking and you make little attempt to hide your contempt for it, therefore your remarks will be given the weight they deserve.

[mdh]

Mike,

I sense you have a real passion (obsession?) with disproving universalism. I feel bad for you.

No need to feel bad at all. Actually, I am a person who does not easily give up at most anything I try to accomplish. Recently my wife wanted a sofa table so I designed and made one out of "bird's eye" maple in my shop. We had unusual difficuly getting the finish just right. She was ready to give up but I started over three times and it turned out very nice.

One of the most knowledgeable people I have encountered at this forum was once part of this discussion and gave up long ago. PM'd me and said universalism is absurd. I'm sure he has made better use of his time than me but I don't think the issue has been fully explored, as in the subject of this thread.

So if faith is still possible, it just might be possible for justification, right?

No, I do not think faith as described in the scripture will be possible.

Homer,

I feel bad for you because I sense that this is an obsession. It feels like a "fools errand", trying to prove the unprovable. Like me trying to prove to you that UR is true. I don't think it can be done. It also seems that in trying to prove this, you do things of which you would disapprove of others doing. You judge peoples motives and methods(saying they use wishful thinking), make blanket statements indicating the scriptural evidence for UR is totally lacking and without merit. You belittle books and writers who profess a hope (or belief) in UR as if YOU were the ultimate authority. You seem to have an almost arrogant opinion of your own ability to interpret scripture and judge others who are less proficient than you. This is why I feel bad for you.

I wish you could humbly admit you could be wrong, and continue the dialog with a more gentle and humble spirit. This is also the problem I had with this other person who posted against UR, of whom you mention.

Just because something seems obvious to you doesn't mean you are right. With the obvious difficulties in coming to definitive answers as in what happens to someone when they die, I would think a humble approach would be a sign of wisdom.

My prior post, where I tried to address your question about whether justification is possible post-mortem, was an attempt to show what appeared to me to be flaws in your reasoning. It seems you have taken a couple of descriptive texts and tried to make them "laws". Like the writer of Hebrews "definition" of faith. It seems to me he was describing what faith is like in this life, rather than giving a comprehensive definition.

You remind me of those who take the verse (1 Cor. 12:3) where it states that only by the Holy Spirit can one say Jesus is Lord, and combine it with Phil 2, where it states that all shall one day proclaim the Lordship of Christ (to God's glory BTW), and try to use this to prove that regeneration will have taken place in all people.

You take a couple of verses, interpret them in a wooden, literal fashion and combine them to prove something unrelated to what the author was trying to say.

It would be better, in my humble opinion, to remember the words of Jesus, that with God all things are possible.

Humbly,
Mike