He Is Not Far: Those Who Seek Mercy Shall Find It?
Apr 27
T.C.R, the prolific blogger that he is, posted something a little while ago about the unreached being saved. Here is the post for context . I remember a few years ago my wife and I got into about a 2 hour argument about this issue. I think the question was actually generated in a small group in which I was instructing and my answer was the age old Reformed answer “how can they hear unless someone preaches”. Thus by sheer location, timing, and exposure a person will be damned to hell.
My wife did not accept such an agrument and immeadiatley appealed to God’s compassion. Her’s was the basic argument, then what about the mentally impaired or children? Where do they go she asked? I told her then that God was loving but if such a child or person was not elected then they would be lost but that was between them and God. She didn’t like that answer either {chuckling}.
A quick sidebar, for those who reject election this argument is even worst. Because a person couldn’t come to a point where they could accept Jesus then their decisional regeneration, or the lack there of, is just as likely to land them in hell also right? But back to the program.
About a year ago, I began to reconsider such a point. I remember laughing at Tony Evans who wrote about a doctrine called “transdispensationalism”. Here is a quote:
Now there’s a third way God can deal in grace with those who can’t believe because they have never heard the gospel. He can apply another dispensation and its criteria to them. A dispensation is simply an economy or an administration of God, a way in which He deals with people based on the information he has given them.
For instance, people in the Old Testament were saved without hearing the name of Jesus, because Jesus hadn’t come to earth yet. But they were saved because they believed in the revelation of God.
The Bible says Abraham believed God and was accounted as righteous, or saved, for believing in God’s promise of a son and a seed (Genesis 15:6). This was long before the Mosaic sacrificial system was ever begun.
Abraham believed without hearing about Jesus, but I am not saying that people can be saved apart from Jesus. Never. Nobody can get saved without Jesus, because He is the Savior of all men, as we read in 1 Timothy 4:10. Everybody is saved through Christ, even those who lived before Jesus came, because in the mind and heart of God, Jesus was already sacrificed to pay for sin before the world was ever created (see Revelation 13:8). So a person can be saved without knowing Jesus’ name, but not without Jesus’ provision for sin.
In the case of a person who never hears the gospel and never knows the name of Jesus, but who responds to the light he has, God treats that person like an Old Testament saint, if you will. That is, if the person trusts in what God has revealed, God deals with that person based on the knowledge he has, not the information he never received. I call this transdispensationalism.
By this I mean if a person is sincerely seeking God and desiring to know Him, and is responding to the truth he knows, if there is no missionary or direct manifestation of God, then God judges that person based on his faith in the light he has received. And as in the case of Abraham, God will retroactively count this person as righteous by applying the death of Christ from the dispensation of grace.
I don’t like dispensational theology; however, I do agree with the premise of what Dr. Evans was trying to convey. Before Christ God extended His mercy to people based on His own grace and especially to those who desired such grace and mercy. If God did that then, what prevents that now? Christ’s work does not minimize or put God’s grace and mercy in a box, it provides the necessary blood to satisfy God’s wrath.
Now that does not mean that the Gospel is somehow in dual work, the Gospel now becomes the fulfillment or the full revelation of God’s mercy pronounced early in the biblical narrative. If the speculation of Genesis 3:20-21 is correct and the animal used to clothe them, also was used to atone for their sin, then we have to agree that this “protevangelium” was given before the first animal was killed for atonement purposes.
Now many will say Evans (whom I have my share of concerns with) has no biblical merit to say such a thing. MacArthur was very firm on this point in his critique and outright disdain for the work “Totally Saved”. However, I think he is wrong. The entire narrative of scripture seems to hint towards this, especially the OT. There are quite a few times God had revealed Himself to others without those people being in the direct path of His redemptive plans. For example Abraham meets Melchizedek, Moses meets Jethro. Both seemed to have a relationship with God.
So that begs the question today. Can God extend mercy to people apart from them hearing the Gospel? My answer is yes. I believe that God has set the boundaries and the time, thus He is fully aware of that persons condition and knows if they desire His mercy or their own way. If the latter God gives them with they want, if the former He gives them what they want. A heart that desires mercy, though they may not understand how such a mercy can be attained, will receive mercy. And a heart that desires its own way will find a way to make its own way and deny the imprint of God on themselves (Romans 1:18-23 ?) and God will give them exactly what they want.
This all boils down to our view on God as I said at T.C’s post. If we believe God to be a cosmic bully with His hands on the trigger of a planet sized Uzi, then we will believe that those who don’t hear God is eager to push into the lake. However, if we believe God to be a loving creator who desired to be loved by His creation and has been in the process of redeeming them since they first rebelled and has made provisions throughout human history for this redemption then my perspective may be a bit more palatable for you.
In closing I believe that God is not far from any of us. His desire is that none be loss; however, many will choose their own way. Others may be somewhat ignorant of the facts of the Gospel but desire a relationship and it is seen by their actions and sorrow over sin (revealed anyway). I look forward to interacting with you.
“Thus by sheer location, timing, and exposure a person will be damned to hell.” It is this idea which leads to what I believe is a false conclusion. If it was, indeed, true that people are condemned to hell simply because they, by pure chance, miss out on an opportunity to hear the gospel, then that does appear to be unfair. However, I don’t think this is what the Bible teaches.
I think the Bible clearly teaches that people go to hell because they are sinners: morally and spiritually fallen in Adam, those who continually “fall short of the glory of God”. “The soul that sins shall die.” So, all people, without exception, deserve to spend eternity in hell.
So, when we come to the question, “What happens to those who die never having heard the gospel?” I see no other biblical answer than they are eternally lost. But, they are not lost because they never had a chance to hear the gospel; they are lost because they are sinners deserving of eternal death.
I think Dr. Evans is manufacturing a theological solution to this “problem” out of thin air. I find absolutely no biblical support at all for any notion of “transdispensationalism”.
Old Testament saints were saved because they trusted God’s promise of a Messiah who was to come. Jesus said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad” (John 8:56). We’re saved today by trusting in the Messiah who came.
When it comes to babies and the mentally/intellectually impaired, I don’t know. The Bible doesn’t say, and so anything said by us would be speculation. I don’t worry about because if God intended us to know He would have caused it to be written down. That being said, I tend to lean toward the speculation that the mentally impaired, aborted fetuses, as well as persons who die in infancy or as young children, are somehow numbered among the elect. But, that is pure speculation and has no biblical support.
Lionel-
I attended the Shepherds Conference that occured just after Evans taught his transdispensationalism. It was the subject of much conversation and MacArthur and the other guest speakers spent a lot of time teaching against it. John Mac seemed genuinely concerned about and for his friend Tony Evans. Anyway, that was when I still thought it would be a good idea to be a pulpit-meister. I took all the expository preaching electives-
Wyeth,
So you believe that a person who desires God mercies but have not heard this God clearly articulated is lost?
Also Wyeth, being “born into sin” is not a choice either. I have no choice but to be born in sin and I have no choice to be born in an area where the Gospel has not yet come. However, I do have a choice to respond to an Omnipresent God whose direct imprint is on me and creation. As truely stated by one of my favorite movie quotes “I am a victim of my circumstances” will God then not look upon me with mercy? If not how do you define that God as loving? Whats the differene between a man looking a guy who is a paralegic fall into a stream and say “its his fault” and calling such a man unloving?
Thoughts?
Lionel,
I too have a hard time reconciling the notion that a God who died for everyone (Hebrews 2:9) and who desires that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6) would condemn someone for the “mistake” of being born in the wrong time and/or place. That hardly seems fair. And while I know they aren’t about this topic, parables like the Workers in the Vineyard and the Prodigal Son nonetheless demonstrate that God’s sense of fairness and justice is scandalously more generous, not stricter, than our own.
“In closing I believe that God is not far from any of us.”
Though I’m aware of the contention over this verse, I’m of the belief that John 1:9 affirms this.
Since placing the cursor on the highlighted verse allows one to read the entire verse, I’ll quote (Jesus via four) partial verses:
John 14:6 No one comes to the Father except by Me.
John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him.
John 6:37 All that the Father gives Me will come.
As beneficial as redemption is for those in Jesus’ will {diatheke [testament (covenant ~ Hebrews 9:15 - 17 ), it (redemption) is not about "those who are called" ... it's about Jesus.
I've neither heard nor read Dr. MacArthur's response; my guess is that it is worth finding and reading. That said, within the past decade, he taught the same basic error -- wrt "what happens to babies who die?" (Safe in the Arms of God). Within the past few years, via TMSJ critique of NCT, error was advocated wrt an issue which Dr. Evans gets right: Believing God has always been the "common denominator" of faith. See Genesis 15:6, James 2:23, and Romans 4:22 - 25 . The latter verses, especially in the context of Romans 2 - 5 , make it inarguable that upon revelation that Jesus is the (only) valid object of (saving) faith, faith comes by hearing the RHEMA [message of Jesus' substitutionary atonement -- 2 Corinthians 5:21 ( Romans 10:17 ). John 8:56 does not support -- indeed no Scripture (contrary to J. Mac / TMSJ) supports the fallacy that Abraham [or any who were in Jesus' will ( Hebrews 9:15 - 17 ) but preceded Him in death] believed in Jesus as Messiah. Abraham was not clairvoyant ( John 8:56 refers to YHVH providing a lamb — substitute — for Isaac); he believed that which had been revealed — that his descendants would outnumber the stars in the sky and the sand on the shore — and it was credited to him as righteousness. Today, believing what has been revealed regarding Jesus (via Scripture, of course) is credited as righteousness … no exceptions.
Those in Jesus’ will ( Hebrews 9:15 – 17 ) WILL hear ( Romans 10:17 ) the RHEMA ( 1 Corinthians 5:21 ) and believe ( John 6:37 ). God is sovereign; if He wants someone to hear, He will send a preacher ( Romans 10:14 ) . The ONLY reason He leaves here those whom He saves is so that we will preach the RHEMA [we, of course, have no way of knowing who is in Jesus' will ( Hebrews 9:15 - 17 ), so we are to preach to all who will hear]. If we won’t / don’t, well … 2 Corinthians 5:10 .
Wyeth,
You stated:
“That being said, I tend to lean toward the speculation that the mentally impaired, aborted fetuses, as well as persons who die in infancy or as young children, are somehow numbered among the elect.”
My question:
If this is the case, wouldn’t abortion be a good thing?
To further clarify my last comment:
If a person is doing it (in honest error) in order to save as many people as possible from future eternal damnation (since God apparently is unable to save all, even though He desires all to be saved). For this act would somehow seal their fate for God’s election.
Jim,
You stated:
“The ONLY reason He leaves here those whom He saves is so that we will preach the RHEMA [we, of course, have no way of knowing who is in Jesus’ will ( Hebrews 9:15 – 17 ),…”
My response:
I believe you are misapplying Heb 9:15-17. This verse seems to be referring specifically to those who were under the Old Covenant (the Jews). I believe God desires all to be saved under the New Covenant which I believe is for the sins of the whole world (especially for those who are believing).
Jim,
So let me ask a question. Just say a believer in the promises of God died before hearing the Gospel post resurrection. What happened?
Jon and Lionel-you two make some very good points.
Abortion possibly being elected by God (despite certain christians protesting this practice), because the aborted fetuses are of the “elect.” Where pray tell is that in scripture?
This is a new one here.
People going to hell because they choose to be born into sin, or because they choose not to come to God, because they were born into sin (as if they had a choice in the matter), and God didn’t offer it (salvation) to them anyway.
Oh boy…
Seekerman,
I am moving closer towards free will, I am sure I will write about it. I find a great deal of truth (at least interpretation and personal witness) in the Doctrines of Grace, but I have to take it through the ringer one more time and the more I think about the fall and God’s response to it I like the human freedom perspective.
I no longer believe God orchestrated the fall so that His Son could be slayed for our sins. I now believe that the Son coming to be slayed was a response to human freedom.
Beam me up Scotty!
Lionel, the “Beam me up Scotty” remark wasn’t directed at you.
Lionel, I hear what you’re saying.
I don’t want to be too long (hard for me to do), so let me see if I can briefly answer some of your questions.
As far as a person desiring God’s mercy who has not heard the gospel, Jesus has already told us: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out” (Jn 6:37). So, we have no reason to worry that someone who truly wants to be saved will somehow miss out on salvation. God is fully able to get the gospel out to those whom He has chosen. Remember, Jesus also said, “Of those whom [the Father] gave me I have lost not one” (Jn 18:9).
As far as being “a victim of my circumstances” (i.e., born in sin), we err in thinking in categories of fair/unfair. First of all, because God owes humanity NOTHING. What would be “fair” is to wipe out the entire planet, and take out the human race with it.
Also, it’s wrong to think of God’s love as requiring Him to accept us or give us a “chance”. Think of it this way: Just as turning on a light banishes darkness from a room, so the splendor of God’s holiness (light) obliterate sin (darkness). God and sin don’t mix, just like light and darkness don’t mix. How can we accuse God of being unloving, simply because His infinite holiness & absolute sinlessness demands the judgment and utter condemnation of sin? It’s part of God’s very nature to condemn sin (and when you’re absolutely sinless and infinitely holy, ANY sin is worthy of judgment and eternal condemnation).
Finally, to answer Jon briefly: My speculation about the mentally impaired, aborted fetuses, and persons who die in infancy or as young children is just that: speculation. The Bible gives us no answers to those questions. Which means, it ain’t none of my business! It’s none of your business, either! That’s God’s business, and He hasn’t chosen to reveal those things to us. So, personally, I don’t worry about it, nor do I spend much time thinking about it. As I see it, part of submitting to God is submitting to the fact that He doesn’t answer all our questions, nor does He have to.
Widening my idea about God and His grace and mercy have definitely helped me to extend that to others. What you’ve said here is key to us understanding that we, mere mortals, will NEVER know the mind of God. I think the traditional Reformed tradition is guilty of putting confines on God based on what they can grasp of the Scriptures, but God is not limited to the Scriptures. The book of Romans says that God has mercy on whom He pleases and I think we would do ourselves a favor by accepting that.
Great thoughts Lionel
@ Jim
“Those in Jesus’ will ( Hebrews 9:15 – 17 ) WILL hear ( Romans 10:17 ) the RHEMA ( 1 Corinthians 5:21 ) and believe ( John 6:37 ). God is sovereign; if He wants someone to hear, He will send a preacher ( Romans 10:14 ) .”
Where does the Holy Spirit fit into all of that? It’s the Spirit that actually makes someone capable of believing (1 Cor 2:14; 12:3), right? We can preach all day long, but if the Spirit isn’t involved—working both in the listener and anointing the words of the speaker—it isn’t going to amount to anything. Seems safe to assume then that the Spirit precedes us; or is the Holy Spirit only present when a believer is present? If it precedes us, why couldn’t a person’s orientation toward the Spirit be sufficient if they die before hearing the gospel? I think it overzealous to condemn whole populations of people because they are/were incapable of hearing the gospel.
“The ONLY reason He leaves here those whom He saves…”
I thought we were here to be the body of Christ, which certainly includes, but is not limited to, spreading the gospel. You know, be peacemakers, the salt of the earth, etc.
Wyeth,
God could have taken out the human race when the first two guilty parties sinned. We were not involved one iota in their decision, so you are right God could have wiped out the earth but we wouldn’t be having this discussion
Next, if you believe in the doctrine of inhereted sin, I have no choice but to sin, thus how can I be guilty of something I have no control over what so ever? Either I sin by choice or I sin because I have to, but if it is the first I understand my guilt, if it is the second then I stuggle a bit with that perspective.
I also agree with your first paragraph, but I don’t think it contradicts what I shared. I believe all who the Father give will come, that doesn’t negate transdispensationalism brother.
Finally your last paragraph is troubling Wyeth. I don’t mean that in a threating way. The reason being is I lost a child when my wife was pregnant, the human emotion and spirituality causes me to ask where are they? What happened to them. If they were a living creature with a soul what happened to them. The fact that this question originates out of the psyche that God gave me, makes it my business.
Vetta,
Thanks homegirl. It is only something I am pondering. But I like (oh I hate to say that) Dr. Evans’ points.
Lionel, I can’t even begin to imagine the pain you & your wife must feel, having lost a child. But, I still have to accept the fact that God owes me nothing, and some things He has chosen not to reveal to me. As my great-grandmother used to say: “Everything He wants you to know, He put in the Book. If He didn’t put it in there, He didn’t intend for you to know.” In other words, that’s God’s business.
Look at the book of Job: Job tragically lost all 10 of his children. Job’s response:
“Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. And he said, ‘Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.’ In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong” (Job 1:20-22).
When confronted with painful, unanswerable questions, I’ve found I have to do what Job did: bow in humility before our sovereign God and (sometimes with tears in my eyes and pain in my heart) worship Him.
And, if you notice, Job never received an answer from God for his “Why?” questions. God didn’t owe Job an answer (in fact, He says as much in chapters 38-41). WE know some things that happened “behind the scenes”, because we’ve read the book, but Job never read the book of Job! He never received an answer in this life, as far as we know. Nevertheless, Job submitted Himself to this sovereign God, and he worshiped.
Wyeth,
I don’t think why is the comment, but where is the comment. I think I struggle more with the answer of “its not for me to know”. If it is for me to raise them, bear the responsiblity of seeing them mature, I don’t know how it isn’t my responsiblity to know, especially as we deal with death, pain, lost and evil in the world.
Amen, Wyeth.
Lionel, et al. ~
Even if you’ve heard R.C. Sproul’s metaphor …
Does God have to place the spoonful of antidote on your lip, but you still must decide to swallow it / does God have to place the life-preserver in your hand but you still have to grasp it?
or
Does God pull you from the bottom — dead (“in trespasses and sins” ~ Ephesians 2:1 ) and breath life into you?
… it’s apparent that you haven’t really considered the ramifications of your answer, for, if you believe that it is you who ultimately determines whether you will be saved, God is not sovereign. A not-sovereign God is an idol.
People laugh — but shouldn’t! — when they hear the old saw: God made man in His image … then man returned the favor. Truth is that ADAM was made in the image of God (imago Deo, for you Reformed types; Genesis 1:26 ); the rest of us were made in the image of fallen Adam ~ Genesis 5:3 .
“Therefore, as through one man’s offense JUDGMENT came to all men, resulting in condemnation, … .” Romans 5:18; 1 Cor. 15:22)
Romans (2 – ) 5 (and 1 Cor. 15) explilcitly teach that we’re each born spiritually dead because we’re “in Adam”; being “made alive” ( Ephesians 2:1 ) “in Christ” is the only remedy. But, again, it’s His choice, not ours. John 14:6 , John 6:44 , and John 6:37 cannot be any more plain; Hebrews 9:15 – 17 is “on all fours” with those verses from John’s gospel as well as each and every other portion of Scripture which expressly and unequivocally reveals the sovereignty of God in salvation.
2 Peter 3:9 is one among several verses which — when “ripped out of context” — appears to contradict or be inconsistent with the unequivocal verses which reveal election and predestination. As to that example, take a mere few seconds to observe that the “any” refers to the elect (again, entirely consistent with the aforementioned John verses and Hebrews 9:15 – 17 ). Hint: The paragraph which includes v. 9 is addressed to “beloved”, as is the entire letter — 2 Peter 3:1 — which are the same receipients as those to whom 1 Peter was addressed … the elect ( 1 Peter 1:2 ).
“Hearing” ( Romans 10:17 ) may, of course, include reading; and, yes, preaching (whether audibly or in writing) will neither be truly understood nor efficient for regeneration unless the Holy Spirit “makes alive” the hearer. The PROMISE which pertains to redemption was made to Abraham and to his seed — Jesus ( Galatians 3:16 ; cf. Galatians 3:29 ). “[T]hose who are called may receive the eternal inheritance” via the death of the testator: Jesus ( Hebrews 9:15 – 17 ).
Those three verses (vis a’ vis Galatians 3:16 and Galatians 3:29 ) are God’s plan of redemption ‘in a nutshell”. Dispensational theology must deny such Truth; Covenant Theology must deny such Truth; even ostensible New Covenant Theology proponents who are Israel-centered (Judeocentric) and /or man-centered (anthropocentric) — rather than truly Jesus-centered — must deny such Truth. Such Truth is the rock upon which all bad theology crashes; of course one whose god is a glorified concierge will go to whatever preposterous length necessary to avoid such Truth. Please employ every means available and necessary to not be one of those!
Wyeth and Jim,
Wyeth, you stated:
“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out” (Jn 6:37). So, we have no reason to worry that someone who truly wants to be saved will somehow miss out on salvation. God is fully able to get the gospel out to those whom He has chosen. Remember, Jesus also said, “Of those whom [the Father] gave me I have lost not one” (Jn 18:9).”
My response:
Again, these versus seem to be specifically referring to the Jews and particularly the Jews during the time of Jesus’s ministry on earth that were “chosen” for a special purpose during Christ earthly ministry. Other scriptures speak of God giving All Things to Jesus after his exhaltation. All things are said to be eventually subdued and put under subjection to Christ. Therefore, how can anyone be left out of this subjection/reconciliation (Christless eternity?).
Remember that the book of John was still under the old covenant. The Hebrew scriptures you and Jim quoted are also referring to the people in which the old covenant applied.
If the OT Saints like Noah and Enoch could be saved without ever HEARING the name of Jesus…and with men simply seeking the face of the Lord the best they knew how, then why is it that we have totally said otherwise today with issues of salvation? For indeed, no one can be saved apart from the work/power of the LORD Jesus Christ.
What has never been discussed by Scripture is that those never knowing audibly of His name are unable to be saved/encounter HIM. Again, why the assumptions?
Taking it further, why is it that everyone on all sides of this argument always assumes that people can only make their decision for or against Christ before they die?
Does the Bible even say that?
Most tend to start with this verse in Hebrews 9:27/Hebrews 9:26-28..but that says that one faces judgement after death. Nowhere is the verse even qualifed to saying all the dynamics of what happens at the judgement/differing situations taken into account of what happened during the time of living. I guess for those people who believe in soul sleep it makes sense that no one could choose Christ after death …but for anyone who believes that our spirits/souls are alive and awake even though our bodies are dead, I think the question is valid.
As it is, most say that what matters is that once one dies, that’s it——-but on the issue, where in the Bible does it say that once one dies, they have no other options?
If there was a chance to accept the Lord after death then I’m sure it would remove a lot of the reservations some people have. Athiests wouldn’t be able to say there was no God if they were standing in front of him. And CS Lewis in his book “The Last Battle” seems to suggest that there is an opportunity at the end.
Of course one day every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Jon,
Man you going to have to explain yourself homeboy. The book of John was still under the Old Covenant? Actually John’s Gospel is one of the Greatest tools (behind the book of Hebrews) of explaining Christ from the Old Testament at least from a picture/fullfillment perspective. So do elaborate.
Gabe,
You are bringing in purgatory and other doctrines. You are correct to say the bible never cleary states that. You do have the parable in Luke and then Hebrews 9, but for what provision does God make for those who have never had the opportunity to express repentance or not from an articulated Gospel perspective?
Jim,
That is very far from true, your statement about God’s sovereignty my friend. You see if you define sovereignty as every detail that occurs is a direct result of God’s will then you may be correct. But I don’t believe the Bible defines Sovereingty that way. Sovereignty is defined by God’s complete rule over the earth and other cosmos. But in that Sovereignty God could have easily given us human freedom, which I am almost ready to fully embrace. I have the freedom to take your life, or saw my child in half (disobey God) or I have the choice to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and lay down my life for the good of humanity and God’s Kingdom. Both are choices, but have their respective consequences, neither negates God’s sovereignty.
Here’s a good website I just stumbled upon:
http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/search?q=unlimited+atonement
Lionel,
Yes, the “four gospels” were under the old covenant. That is why Jesus and his disciples still had to abide by old covenant law. I believe that the new covenant went into effect at Pentecost. Now this does not mean that many of the things written did not apply to us in the new covenant, however, it requires more dilligent study to discern what applies to whom and at what time did it apply. I believe the scriptures that referred to Jesus not losing any that the Father gave him, was referring specifically to those chosen for work during his earthly ministry. This was not referring to God’s chose over who Christ ultimately draws and reconciles to Himsself. I believe that many scriptures explain that this is the plan for ALL under the new covenant which applied to those who were under the old (during Jesus’s earthly ministry – 4 gospesls included) as well as ALL who were not under obligation to the old covenant.
Jon,
I agree
You agree with what, precisely, Lionel? I breathed a sigh of relief upon reading your 7:59 a.m. comment; even if you’re not familiar with the heresy known as Marcionism, that comment indicates at least that you’re “on the right track”. May “I agree” not be indicative of derailment!
Nothing happens without God’s permission or direction — in other words, He is soverign. Again: Any not-soverign god is an idol.
I intend to read today’s “post” by this evening, btw; I’ll probably comment further thereafer. For now, please understand: Your “wrestling” is healthy; Marcionism is desperate and, in the true sense of the word, pathetic.
Brother Lionel
On the issue of purgatory, its something that I wish was discussed more. In discussing the issue with many of my brothers in the Eastern Orthodox Church, it has always been interesting to see some of their perspectives on the issue…as well as of those in liturgical circles such as Catholic..and some others. Outside of that, it is already an historical fact that the early Christian practice of prayer for the dead was not an odd thing to do. …with many of the early Church fathers in the 1st through 3rd centuries speaking often on the subject. …whether it be with Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Tertullian or many others. As it relates to Jewish culture, The Maccabees apparently PRAYED for the dead (and gave us the “gift” of “Purgatory”). ..and though others may take issue with it, one must keep in mind the historicity of the book—especially seeing its description of the Jewish Feast of Hannakah, also refered to as the celebration of the the Feast of Dedication in John 10:21-23/ John 10 .
For an excerpt from the book on the issue:
Granted that Maccabbees…both the 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees ) …..had one element where they took things to the “Puragotory” level–and Jews do not regard 2 Maccabees as canonical, perhaps because of its theological innovations……but the book is historical……and there are many elements I’ve been intrigued by when seeing other scriptures. There are other scriptures within the protestant cannon that have had many pondering purgatory—-one of which may refer to a prayer for the dead, found in 2 Timothy 1:16-18, which reads as follows:
May the Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain, but when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently, and found me (the Lord grant to him to find the Lord’s mercy on that day); and in how many things he served at Ephesus, you know very well. As with the verses from 2 Maccabees, these verses refer to prayers that will help the deceased “on that day” (perhaps Judgement Day). Of coruse it is not stated that Onesiphorus, for whom Paul prayed, was dead. However, some scholars infer this based on the way Paul only refers to him in the past tense, and prays for present blessings on his household, but for him only “on that day”. And towards the end of the same letter, in 2 Timothy 4:19, Paul sends greetings to “Prisca and Aquila, and the house of Onesiphorus”, distinguishing the situation of Onesiphorus from that of the still living Prisca and Aquila.
There’s also consideration of how other things Jesus said seem to indicate that there will be forgiveness in the world to come—as seen in Matthew 12:31-33 /Luke 12:9-11………..and, for that matter, how God could forgive the sins of others who were acting in ignorance when they were nailing them to the cross in Luke 23:33-35—without any record of their ever asking God’s forgiveness in THIS lifetime since they were unaware of who the Christ was..
Something else to consider..
I was curious as to what your thoughts would be on this. Obvious is the case that many in in the faith have always had a view of taking the Word literally..and I’m reminded of many conversations where it seemed that this was brought up in theological discourses on taking the WOrd seriously and yet many being unwilling to accept what Paul said here–showing in action that many really do not believe in taking the Word seriously and more specifically, taking the WOrd wherever it’s in line with their paticular views.
Personally, I take the scripture literally—and I see no reason as to why not. Many may say “So, you’re basically being for the concept of PURGATORY/THINKING DEAD RELATIVES can be redeemed??!!”, with the reaction often being based on what may often be seen in many liturgical circles,
Though difficult, I don’t see the verse as a problem to take literally since there’ve been numerous interpretations given to it…..with one reasonable view being that “they…who are baptized..” refers to living believers giving outward testimony to their faith in baptism by immersion due to how they were originally drawn to the Lord by the examples of other exemplary, faithful beluievers who were witnesses of the power of God and who had already died subsequently. This paticular perspective is very much what often occurs with the concept of Icons in Eastern Orthodox–where pictures of previous saints that have already gone before us (including those in Hebrews 11/Hebrews 11:11 with the Hall of Faith). For in the view of Eastern Thought, those who’ve gone ahead of us are not merely elsewhere in the “Great Beyond”–but very much aware of what is happening down below. Kind of like what happens for many when Grandma died and loved ones–whether those who were believers inspired by her example to continue walking godly or those who were not saved and yet were won to the Lord by her actions/chose to dedicate their lives to Christ— were wondering of the woman who kept the family together in Christ think “I know that Grandma is looking down upon me right now…and I hope she’s proud”. It’s the reality that the saints are with us in spiritual connection:
By no means am I saying, by the way, that it’s appropiate for others to act as if they can have conversations with Grandma as with what often happens when a family member dies and they say that they’re still in the house and every morning they wake up they still hear that the tea pot’s whistling every morning before church just like it was when she was alive/making tea for everyone (lol lol ). But For anyone who has studied the book of Hebrews fully, the deceased individuals of Hebrews 11 is something I keep in mind when it comes to identifying who the “witnesses” are that’re looking on toward us. Personally, what comes to my mind is not only the thought of others whose past lives of faith encourage myself to do the same and have given godly examples to follow/give motivation…..but it is also the thought of actually having a crowd up in Heaven made of heavenly saints cheering me on actively that captivates my mind.
I think on issues of provision its an issue of Mercy…..as God often made clear that He judges people on the basis of what they know rather than what they didn’t. Some cases to consider would be the mentally handicapped or babies….
Thanks for giving out the website, Brother Seekerman…as it was a blessing
Hmm … soverEign (not once, but twice!?!).
Jon Paden,
You said: “These verses [John 6:37 and John 18:9] seem to be specifically referring to the Jews and particularly the Jews during the time of Jesus’ ministry on earth that were ‘chosen’ for a special purpose during Christ earthly ministry.”
Then, you said: “Remember that the book of John was still under the old covenant. The Hebrew scriptures you and Jim quoted are also referring to the people in which the old covenant applied.”
Seriously, I have never heard of such an interpretation of these verses of Scripture in my life, and I’ve been reading them for about 30 years. Where, exactly, do you get the idea that John 6:37 and 18:9 don’t apply to New Covenant believers? You’ll have to explain that one to me because, quite frankly, I don’t believe that idea can be found in the context at ALL. God only has one people, all saved by grace through faith, all chosen before the foundation of the world, all kept safely in God’s hands so that none will ever be lost. I’m shocked that you can “write off” the gospel of John.
Your view sounds like a version of Dispensationalism. Is it? Whatever the case, the view you express cannot be proven from Scripture and is, in fact, in direct contradiction of Scripture which says, “All Scripture is…profitable…” (2 Timothy 3:16). For if the gospels are only applicable to those under the Old Covenant, then they are of no profit to me or anyone else living today. That’s ridiculous!
Also, this view is no different from that of theological liberals who dismiss whole portions of Scripture as “myth”, “unreliable”, “sexist”, “out-of-date”, etc. in order to escape the obvious personal ramifications such Scriptures would have if they are indeed true and relevant. If it’s wrong for the liberals to dismiss Scripture (and it is), then it’s wrong to use some theological system to, in effect, write off whole portions of Scripture.