Religion and ethics in the news this week

Sterilisation of drug addicts

In a perfect world we wouldn't need this; but our world is far from perfect.

If a drug addict can not look after a child is it not better that they do not have a child? In the case of men, perhaps they could have some of their sperm stored before having the vasectomy?

It is certainly greatly distressing that so many babies born in the UK are born addicted to drugs. If a drug addict, for example, has had three children (all taken from her once born) is there not sense in suggesting to her that she be sterilised?

I agree that segregation of schools based on religion should end - it just perpetuates the separation, the them and us attitudes, of humanity. I was quite surprised that P. Robinson would suggest this! Religion, culture and nationalism all perpetuate separation amongst what is a one humanity - crazy really how man fights man based on these false pillars.

Free will and neuroscience article: free will is a tricky one - it's one of those paradoxes - we have it and we don't have it! Most people are under the influence of their conditioning through childhood/education/religion etc etc such that we don't have true free will even if we think we do. Unless we know the source of energy or consciousness we are expressing with, living from, then there is no true free will as I understand it.

Well William and fellow bloggers.....the cabbage loving fruit cake (I'm quite sane really!) that is yours truly won't be around so much to spread the 'love and light' for a while....whilst in the land of nod I was burgled last week and computer stolen with ext hard drive back up and have lost a lot of work that need to re-do so that along with other commitments in Nov/Dec means W&T will have to take a back seat. I have learned a thing or two from sharing on here and reading the posts and debates. And given the chance again some posts I would express differently. Sos for any sharing that came across as preachy/lecturing etc - that was definitely never my intention and has been part of my learning!
Have a great dinner in nov....
As you've prob gathered by now - life for me is about love....
to live and let live,
live and let love,
love and let love!
....ciao... :-)

Sorry to hear about the burglary, Eunice.

Love and let live.

Hey Eunice, Really sorry to hear that you were burgled :o(
Just to say, your words have definitely made me feel better at times, so your ethos does work! Really hope to see you back again soon :o)

Sorry from me too that you got burgled Eunice. :(

I read the 'Is atheism a religion?' (in the same way that bald is a type of hair cut) article. Wonderful evangelical christian intolerance on display there. Atheists aren't the only baddies to evangelicals of course. Someone like Parrhasios would come in for equally strong condemnation.

“Shame on those Western Christians who casually neglect or scornfully deny what the scriptures defend and what many brothers and sisters would rather die [for] than deny”

Any christians here feel ashamed?

@PeterKlaver (5)

'I read the 'Is atheism a religion?' (in the same way that bald is a type of hair cut) article. Wonderful evangelical christian intolerance on display there.'

I'm a little confused PK, what exactly was intolerant about the article? It's obviously not in favour of atheism, but disagreeing with someone doesn't equate to being intolerant of them. All I'm seeing in your post really is snide little put downs rather than any constructive debate. If you feel that evangelicals are being intolerant on a particular point, let us know what it is so that we can reflect on your concerns. I would be quite troubled if you find the idea of '[encouraging] Christians to share their faith “from below” by serving and living out truth in their own lives' intolerant or some other way pernicious.

I always thought I had a right not to believe in a christian or any other god.

Reading the "Is atheism a religion?" I am not sure if some people realise this.

"He warned that the decline of faith among parents was leading to a whole generation of children in Germany growing up with an “atheist mindset” and the belief that “faith doesn’t matter”."

Under human rights faithlessness is as valid a position as faithfulness and it is arrogant and insulting to suggest that it is in some way an inferior position which is up to them to change.

They then have the gall to complain that some atheists are using the same type of evangelical tactics as theirs in opposition to them, what a brass neck !!!.

Jonathan,

I used the word intolerant because the evangelical christian in the story is condemning anyone whose views deviate by more than 1.3 millimeter to the left of his position and more than 1.7 millimeter to the right of his position. Only someone who thinks exactly or almost exactly as he does is ok. The rest, including other christians who happen to have somewhat different views of christianity, are not just wrong but they must also all be ashamed of themselves. So it's a bit 'My version of the fairy tale is the only correct one, you baddies who sign up to what I say by only 97.6%, instead of the minimum required 99.973% or more!'.

And while I'm posting I might as well make one about the robots story. That seemed like little more than blog fodder for a slow day to me. But it's a good excuse to roll out a url that will wind up poster(s) pb, Orthodox-Tradition and Check_that_out:

https://www.gayrobotrights.com/

Are there any verses in the Old Testament that condemn any robot that lies with a robot as he does with a robot?

How do you stone a metal plated robot to death?

I noticed that a few of this weeks articles are from Christian Today, and reading through their site, there a few big articles I think you missed Will. You've linked to a few articles recently on the conflict between Christianity and Atheism and there's quite a state dimension to it at the moment, with an article in Christian Today about China banning house church leaders from travelling to the Lausanne Conference (which itself is surely a news-worthy event?).

In light of Peter Klaver's recent comments about intolerant evangelicals, I wonder if the article on the Love Kampala Festival would be worth linking to? 80,000 people turning out to hear Andrew Palau preaching the gospel despite terrorist threats. Quite a bit of love and compassion there I would have thought.

Jonathan, China is a totalitarian state.If the group had been humanists who had happened to criticise the regieme then they would have their travel rights restricted as well. Every Chinese citizen has their rights restricted not just Christians

PK,

Is there an age of consent for robots?

Christian fairy tales.

Well, I'm post evangelical, post-Emergent and post-Church...so I'll offer some insight.
While we're tallking about fairy tales, what about the fairy tale of human rights?
Where did they come from? Why should anyone pay a blind bit of attention to them? You have the concept, but not the unifying mythology to support it.

And, of course, China hates atheism! Everyone knows that! I mean the Confucian atheism that the state loves at the moment is nothing like humanism! Not at all! No humanist (pseudo) mythology at work here at all, is there?

Again - the attempt to escape religion has produced a pseudo religious mythology about what the world must be like (evangelicals MUST be intolerant, Christians are NEVER persecuted by atheists)

Where do you check your "facts"? The Dawkins forum?

I don't think people in glass houses should throw stones. On this blog they seem to use artillery.

Dave, in most countries it's something like 14 or so if the age difference to the partner is not more than a year. In the Vatican it's a bit lower than in most countries. But that's probably irrelevant, since the clergy there take liberties with young robots anyway, sometimes when they are not even 10 years from the moment of conce ..err.. construction.

How tasteful

*Wear Purple Day*- The thing that struck me reading down the list of those who'd committed suicide, is the lack of support many young people feel as they make the transition into adulthood.
Society really doesn't really promote much in the way of emotional support. Society is still geared to the hunter/gather mentality of priority number 1- putting food on the table, roof over your head, competing against other people and stomping all over them to get there.
Modern societies- whether they proudly wave the flag of capitalism or not- all put the most able hunter/gatherers (richest)in highest esteem.

I think this attitude all plays into the bullying aspect of the suicides. You see it everywhere, online, outdoors, in work. Peoples intolerance and bullying of others and vivid displays of a complete lack of empathy.

It's a deeper problem than just homophobia. It's peoples zoning in on a soft target to sacrifice. Their own insecurities and problems ditched onto some more vulnerable.
I think it's sad, even here Eunice was berated for her message of love, when really alot- not all , but alot of that kinda attitude would go a long long way to making this planet of ours a nicer place to be.

In Uganda they are not prepared to wait for them to commit suicide, their christian tolerance is more direct.

Uganda

Deckard
Well, I'm post evangelical, post-Emergent and post-Church...so I'll offer some insight

keep on going, soon you will reach nirvana in the form of post-Manpat

Thanks Guys - - appreciate it. Could have done without it as they say. Thanks Ryan for your comments too ... keep lovin!
I'll prob sneak a peek now and then to see what going down and maybe make it back for a Xmas special! Parrhasios BP might have settled by then perhaps...
:-)) Til the next time.....have fun!

I know I give the catholic church a hard time when it comes to their policy on condom use to prevent the spread of HIV but I came across this article while trawling through some Ugandan press which shows it's not just they, and the missionaries who goad them on have questions to answer.

Teens With HIV Prefer Religion to ARVs

@Dave (7)

'I always thought I had a right not to believe in a christian or any other god'

Not sure I see the relevance of that. Who is trying to take your rights away?

'Reading the "Is atheism a religion?" I am not sure if some people realise this.'

No idea how you reach that conclusion. Especially when I read this:
'Herbst said Christians could not stay silent about their faith or be content with personal truth only. He encouraged Christians to share their faith "from below" by serving and living out truth in their own lives.

"It is not the prevalence of Christendom that empowers the Gospel but the power of the Holy Spirit that brings the truth into the heart of those who listen," he said.'

This seems to an outright rejection of an notion of legislating Christianity or enforcing it on society with a top-down, state-led approach. The emphasis is on churches and individuals serving their communities and living out the loving message of the gospel, not of Christians demanding that the state outlaw any other expression of religion/irreligion.

'Under human rights faithlessness is as valid a position as faithfulness and it is arrogant and insulting to suggest that it is in some way an inferior position which is up to them to change.'

Dave, that's a rather immature position to take isn't it? Obviously Christians think that Christianity is a superior position to take on the issue of faith/non-faith than Atheism, just as Atheists think that Atheism is a superior position to Christianity. If they didn't think that, they wouldn't be Christians/Atheists. You're essentially saying that it's arrogant to ever think that you're right and someone else is wrong.

'They then have the gall to complain that some atheists are using the same type of evangelical tactics as theirs in opposition to them, what a brass neck !!!.'

Which tactics would they be and what were the specific complaints?


@PeterKlaver (8)

'I used the word intolerant because the evangelical christian in the story is condemning anyone whose views deviate by more than 1.3 millimeter to the left of his position and more than 1.7 millimeter to the right of his position.'

Really? Where did he say that? And since when is saying that someone is wrong and having precisely defined beliefs, the same as intolerance? Intolerance is about how you treat those you disagree with, not how you draw the boundaries of your belief.

The thing that he calls liberals out on is a fairly major belief, that Jesus is the one and only way to salvation. That's not a minor deviation in some secondary or tertiary doctrine. It's a core component of Christology and soteriology.

'The rest, including other christians who happen to have somewhat different views of christianity, are not just wrong but they must also all be ashamed of themselves.'

If Jesus did say that he's the only way to the Father, then liberals teach that there's another way, while at the same time claiming to love Jesus, isn't that reason to be ashamed? Isn't that a logical response? I'm not asking you to belief that Jesus is the only way, jus to see that this is a reasonable response.

'So it's a bit 'My version of the fairy tale is the only correct one, you baddies who sign up to what I say by only 97.6%, instead of the minimum required 99.973% or more!'.'

PK, the way you twist the truth and demonise evangelics just shows your own intolerance. No-one in that article said anything remotely along those lines. If they had, you would have gleefully reproduced a quote and shoved it in evangelical faces. For a supposed man of science, you're awfully keen to make claims without evidence.


@nobledeebee (11)

'Jonathan, China is a totalitarian state.If the group had been humanists who had happened to criticise the regieme then they would have their travel rights restricted as well. Every Chinese citizen has their rights restricted not just Christians'

My point wasn't to draw comparison between between humanists and Christians, but rather to give a wider picture of the persecution faced by Christians around the world.

Will,

Here's an interesting article that raises questions about the media's ability to report on religious events. Normally I'm a fan of the Economist and have found some of their religious articles interesting, but their latest article about Calvinism has been extensively criticised for being uninformed. In response to the Economist, Thabiti Anyabwile, asks Does Calvinism Create Tensions in Churches?.

Jonathan Boyd,

It seems our exchange has now boiled down to the perhaps somewhat subjective issue of what the exact criteria or definition of intolerant should be. I find word definition debates rather less interesting. If it makes sense to you to call me intolerant for calling someone else intolerant then by all means do.

@PeterKlaver (23)

''It seems our exchange has now boiled down to the perhaps somewhat subjective issue of what the exact criteria or definition of intolerant should be. I find word definition debates rather less interesting.'

If you can't justify the use of a word, Peter, then surely you shouldn't be using it?

You're quite critical of being for trying to define intolerance, but you were all for precision when you were attacking the character of an evangelical. Is the phrase 'condemning anyone whose views deviate by more than 1.3 millimeter to the left of his position and more than 1.7 millimeter to the right of his position' (emphasis mine) not quite a strongly word, very precise accusation? You painted a picture of someone who is no narrow-minded that he would hold no-one to be a Christian unless their views were the same. Do you deny that?

Of course what he actually said was that Christians who disregrd central doctrines which people have died for, should be ashamed. I asked you to justify how your accusation fitted with those facts. You're a man of science, so surely you should be accustomed to the peer-review process and indeed be eager for evidence to be examined thoroughly. If someone made a scientific claim and responded to questions by saying that they have no interest in definitions, would that be acceptable in your field? Or would you take it as an admission that the evidence doesn't really back up their claims?

Jonathan Boyd,

"You painted a picture of someone who is no narrow-minded that he would hold no-one to be a Christian unless their views were the same. Do you deny that?"

I said according to him they were not ok, they were wrong and needed to be ashamed. But even though I didn't say he thought they weren't christian, it's not too far off from what you said.

The latter part of your post, where you mix peer review and the scientific process with the (as already stated in an earlier post) sometimes subjective matter of the exact meaning or definition that a word has to people, is not just uninteresting but reaching the border of silly territory.

If you wish to go on about it, then all the best to you. I'm not sure if I'll keep up with it.

Ah Peter, avoiding the subject again.

Who exactly are the 'they' you're referring to - isn't that the issue at hand? Here are the claims you made:

' the evangelical christian in the story is condemning anyone whose views deviate by more than 1.3 millimeter to the left of his position and more than 1.7 millimeter to the right of his position.

'Only someone who thinks exactly or almost exactly as he does is ok.'

'it's a bit 'My version of the fairy tale is the only correct one, you baddies who sign up to what I say by only 97.6%, instead of the minimum required 99.973% or more!'.'

They look like statements of objective fact, rather than subjective opinion. How exactly do you justify:
1) calling these objective claims subjective, and
2) making such accusations without justifying what you've typed?

This is another interesting story from the BBC website
https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11606101

Hello Jonathan,

"Ah Peter, avoiding the subject again."

I'll go further than that. I hadn't just been been avoiding the subject, I had been avoiding your quest to milk a word definitions debate altogether.

I guess I'll have to award you a point now for making me make this post, when I had been thinking of just leaving it. That is very well done of you. Even by just expressing how insubstantial the thing you go on about is, I'm giving you a present. Damn.

@PeterKlaver (28)

Points? Quests? Come on Peter, no need to play adolescent games. If you're going to insult someone (as you did the man in the article) at least have either the courage of your conviction to defend what you said, or the backbone to apologise for a mistake.

If you genuinely think he's intolerant, tell me what was intolerant about what he said. Justify the language you used. Don't you usually demand that Christians justify their claims?

If you don't think he's intolerant, then just acknowledge the mistake - that's part of science isn't it? Recognising mistakes and moving on to new theories, rather than doggedly hanging on to a position against all evidence?

Eunice - # 2.

I was genuinely sorry to learn of your burglary and hope you soon catch-up on your missing work. I am sure that you did nothing whatsoever to deserve your misfortune...

Jonathan

Not so sure about his views on atheists but Guinness (as Peter noted) wasn't really all that wildly tolerant of us delightful liberals. Fair enough - I'm not that tolerant of some evangelicals!

Here is a link for religion and ethics in the news this week. The rather inappropriately named Christian Science monitor has an article about a mayor in Italy who makes Mullah Omar seem less mad by comparison:

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1025/Miniskirt-ban-to-take-effect-in-Italian-town

@Parrhasios (31)

I'm going to have to ask you the same question that PeterK is so far dodging - in what way is he intolerant? It seems to me that the word is bandied about far too much these days, to the extent that it is in danger of losing its value. If you call someone intolerant simply because they say you are wrong, then there are other perfectly good words you could be using and are leaving yourself with fewer options when someone is genuinely intolerant, trying to take away your ability to disagree.

If we take the case of Guinness, he goes further than simply saying liberals are wrong; he says that their beliefs are shameful. However, he doesn't try to restrict anyone's ability to believe certain things, nor is he concerned with what they believe about peripheral matters. His concern here is very much for central doctrines of Christianity, which some people have died defending, but liberal Christians now deny.

If these were simply liberals, Guinness probably wouldn't be talking about shame - the fact they're Christian liberals is important because of the inconsistency. If they were simply denying peripheral doctrines, he wouldn't be talking about shame either. There are plenty of people he disagrees with on lesser issues, but doesn't say they should be ashamed (unless the disagreement is rooted in a more fundamental doctrine). If these were doctrines that no-one had died for, he wouldn't be talking about shame. If no-one cared about these doctrines, then it wouldn't be a big deal, but the fact that people died for them and yet now they are denied - that's what irks him.

So, is he saying that it's shameful that some people choose to believe something different to him? No. He's saying that it's shameful for professing Christians to deny doctrines that are central enough to Christianity for Christians to have willingly given their lives in defence of those doctrines.

That's how I see the situation. I think it's a reasonable defence of what Guinness said; at the very least, it is a considered response. If anyone still wants to call it intolerant, than I'd love to talk further about why you think it's intolerant and hear a thoughtful, considered view of the issue - one that doesn't resort to unjustified, hyperbolic character smears, which is what post 8 in this thread amounts to.

"I'm going to have to ask you the same question that PeterK is so far dodging"

Yup, and will continue to mostly ignore it probably. Told you I was bored with it a few posts ago.

Jonathan - I am going to defend my use of the term intolerant when applied to Guinness. His language denies liberal Christians that degree of respect which is integral to tolerance: I regard his words as not merely affirming a position but delivering a deep and considered insult. He denies my viewpoint legitimacy: he suggests it is dangerous, powerfully seductive, false, non-Biblical, and undermining of faith; he says it is shameful. This is not a tolerant message. I have no sense whatsoever from his words that Guinness could accept my right to call myself a faithful Christian thinking as I do. He is intolerant of liberalism within the Church.

He is intolerant, too, of non-evangelical approaches to the Gospel. He seems to assume that there is, internal to the Bible, a clear understanding of what truth is. I know the Bible very well and I am not aware of one! He suggests that ideas in opposition to his understanding of this Biblical truth are false. False, not mistaken; false and dangerous: I rather suspect he thinks they are not to be tolerated in the Church.

Looking then specifically at your reply, I would like to know first what the "inconsistency" is when the word 'Christian' is paired with 'liberal' - I do not see any inconsistency whatsoever. I think the whole notion that the willingness of people to die for a belief might confer on it any special status is the greatest nonsense - St Thomas More was prepared to die to defend Papal Supremacy - I doubt if either Guinness or yourself have a particular devotion to that doctrine! Guinness' intolerance is manifested when he judges what I would consider a different and nuanced understanding of key Christian doctrines a denial of those doctrines. This is the key. He cannot tolerate difference and indeed I do not see how any committed conservative reformed evangelical could.

I think my use of the word intolerant was accurate - if I believed what Guinness believes I would have to be intolerant of positions like mine. I don't blame him for the assault (as Dave said on another thread I am big enough and ugly enough to survive it) but I think I am entitled to call it what it is.

Parrhasios

It's OK!

You and I know we disagree with each other, but I'm afraid Os Guinness had a pop at just about every Protestant venture except his own!

“Our stand for truth must start in the church itself. We must resist the powerful seductions of those who downplay truth for methodology, or truth in the name of activism, or truth for entertainment, or truth for seeker sensitivity, and above all those who put a modern and revisionist view to the truth in the place of a biblical view.”

You'll note, though, that the revisionists are worst of all!!

Sometimes I worry that, "What I'm not," is what we do!

I can't sleep, so I may as well type.

@PeterKlaver

'Yup, and will continue to mostly ignore it probably. Told you I was bored with it a few posts ago.'

You're bored with providing evidence for claims? Giving up your day job then? I don't imagine that science can be terribly interesting when evidence and satisfying the burden of proof become boring.

This is terribly disappointing after the entertainment you and Natman have provided in the free-thinkers discussion. Will you be growing bored with talking about evidence there as well?

@Parrhasios (35)

What respect do you think liberals are being denied? He has no respect for the denial of the uniqueness of Christ, but how does that make him intolerant? You have no respect for Eunice's view of love - does that make you intolerant? Since you're not trying to prevent her from holding the view or persecuting her for holding it, then I wouldn't have thought so. But perhaps I was wrong. Similarly, PeterKlaver very clearly has no respect for many of the views that reformed Christians hold to - does that make him intolerant?

'I regard his words as not merely affirming a position but delivering a deep and considered insult. He denies my viewpoint legitimacy: he suggests it is dangerous, powerfully seductive, false, non-Biblical, and undermining of faith; he says it is shameful.'

Well, what did you expect? Reformed Christians believe in the uniqueness of Christ in salvation. That's no small matter; it gets right to the heart of the gospel, so of course it's going to be seen as false, non-biblical, dangerous, etc. I still don't see how that equates to intolerance. If you believe that a message is dangerous, then isn't calling it dangerous just being honest? Surely intolerance means going a step further and persecuting against people with such a view? If all intolerance means is accusing someone of dangerous beliefs, then calling someone intolerant isn't exactly a big deal. Pretty much everyone on Will and Testament would then be intolerant for one reason or another.

'I have no sense whatsoever from his words that Guinness could accept my right to call myself a faithful Christian thinking as I do.'

Obviously not, since your defintiion of faithful massively differs from his. Again, that's an issue of clearly defining Christianity, not an issue of tolerance per se.

'He is intolerant of liberalism within the Church.'

I'm not sure that would really be such a bad thing.

'He is intolerant, too, of non-evangelical approaches to the Gospel. He seems to assume that there is, internal to the Bible, a clear understanding of what truth is.'

Yes.

'He suggests that ideas in opposition to his understanding of this Biblical truth are false.'

Let's not exaggerate. The uniqueness of Christ was the big point he was getting at. That's not simply his won interpretation; it's historic orthodoxy.

'False, not mistaken; false and dangerous'

Isn't that just calling a spade a spade? As you've said, your position on the matter is an informed one, not one that has arisen out of ignorance.

'Looking then specifically at your reply, I would like to know first what the "inconsistency" is when the word 'Christian' is paired with 'liberal''

Denial of central doctrines. Such as the uniqueness of Christ. I don't see how you can claim to follow Christ when you disagree with him. Yes, yes, I know that you think he said something different, but from what I read in the Bible, your interpretation doesn't stand up at all.

'I think the whole notion that the willingness of people to die for a belief might confer on it any special status is the greatest nonsense - St Thomas More was prepared to die to defend Papal Supremacy - I doubt if either Guinness or yourself have a particular devotion to that doctrine!'

It's not that it makes the doctrine specials, so much as it magnifies the offence.

'Guinness' intolerance is manifested when he judges what I would consider a different and nuanced understanding of key Christian doctrines a denial of those doctrines.'

The 'different and nuanced' liberal understanding of certain key doctrines is diametrically opposed to the evangelical understanding, meaning that the liberal understanding is effectively a denial.

'He cannot tolerate difference'

That's a massive generalisation. There are particular disagreements which he finds objectionable. That is hardly the same as not being able to tolerant difference. Do you not think that making such unwarranted, sweeping statements shows a lack of nuance, respect and dare I say tolerance?

'I do not see how any committed conservative reformed evangelical could.'

Tell me then, Parrhasios, what do you think of reformed evangelicals? Do you respect our views, or would you consider yourself (by your own definition) to be intolerant of reformed evangelicals?

'I don't blame him for the assault (as Dave said on another thread I am big enough and ugly enough to survive it) but I think I am entitled to call it what it is.'

I find this last sentence quite puzzling. You are almost indignant at the suggestion that you shouldn't 'call it what it is,' yet when Guinness does exactly that, it's a sign of intolerance.

Jonathan Boyd,
Are you really trying to suggest the words of Guinness were NOT intolerant? Seriously?
One thing confuses me about religious intolerance from within the various religious communities is that all people of 'faith' hold close beliefs based on ancient books that cannot and have not been backed up in any way by evidence; hence faith I suppose. It's the 'my fairytale is better than yours' syndrome. The total lack of tolerance within the words of the bible or koran surely means that the intolerant believers who follow their particular book are the ones who are being truer to their faith. If the bible is the book of an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful God, you may get out there and start stoning to death the blasphemers, the gays, the adulterers, the...list is too long.
Does the fact that I am an athiest that make me intolerant? Perhaps, as I find the fact that some people genuinely believe an almighty invisible being is directing life's traffic unfathomable. Insulting even. I debate with the religious, have friends and family who consider themselves christian, or 'believers' at any rate, i'll listen to what they say...but I find their beliefs ridiculous. Religion was forced on me as a child, as with most children in the UK. Recognition that the stories were pretty daft and almost certainly made up was not.

@E-Volve (38)

'Are you really trying to suggest the words of Guinness were NOT intolerant? Seriously? '

An argument from incredulity is not an argument, and not one likely to be taken seriously. You find religion ridiculous - that's fine. But just because you find some religious beliefs ridiculous does not mean that the words of Os Guinness that we're discussing are intolerant. That's an unfathomable, ridiculous and daft leap of illogic. Honestly, this sounds more like an attempt to troll for a reaction than anything else.

Os Guinness certainly isn't calling for anyone to be stoned to death, so he's not covered by that accusation of intolerance. If you would like to know why he doesn't, I'd be happy to offer reasons. If you also want to discuss statistics about religious upbringing, that could be interesting. Given the lack of people in church these days, I'm curious about which religion it is that is being forced on most children and in what way.

Jonathan
I was asking a direct question and, yes, this was based on incredulity at some of the content of your posts. My thoughts on religion have no bearing on whether Guinness's words were intolerant or not, and for you to try to link the two in that manner is unfathomable, ridiculous and daft. His words seem to me to preach intolerance, and my point was that as the bible in many ways actively promotes intolerance surely he was following the word of law and serving his god as commanded.
The mention of the intolerance contained within the bible seems to have struck a nerve, so I apologise if you've taken offence as none was intended. Just an observation, I wasn't looking for a reaction from you or anyone else. Not a very well veiled attempt at disparaging what I had said, but bravo all the same.

@E-Volve (40)

I was asking a direct question''

It should be fairly apparent by now that I don't think he was being intolerant.

'yes, this was based on incredulity at some of the content of your posts'

But as we both know, incredulity does not an argument or a discussion make.

'My thoughts on religion have no bearing on whether Guinness's words were intolerant or not'

That why did you put them in the post? You implied that Guinness is intolerant and proceeded to rant about how religion is intolerant and ridiculous. You offered nothing else resembling evidence or reasoning to back up your claim that Guinness is intolerant, so I assumed that the rant was your 'reasoning.' How that is unfathomable, ridiculous, or daft, you can perhaps explain. For now though, I'll take you at your word that you didn't have any reasoning (in that particular post) to justify your allegation.

'His words seem to me to preach intolerance'

Repeating a claim doesn't make the claim true. What is your rationale for saying that his words were intolerant? I strongly disagree with Parrhasios, but at least he provides reasons when he makes claims - that at least I can respect. You're saying that you would expect intolerance from him since you think that the Bible is intolerant, however you have yet to demonstrate that he was actually intolerant.

'The mention of the intolerance contained within the bible seems to have struck a nerve'

Not so much. It's hardly a new accusation here. I just thought I'd point out the hypocricy of those who castigate Christians for not being logical and rational and for ignoring evidence, then go on to make all sorts of claims without providing evidence and engaging in any sort of logical or rational discourse.

'I apologise if you've taken offence as none was intended. Just an observation, I wasn't looking for a reaction from you or anyone else'

In what world is the phrase 'It's the 'my fairytale is better than yours' syndrome.' not intended to cause offence or elicit a reaction?

'Not a very well veiled attempt at disparaging what I had said, but bravo all the same.'

Veiled? I quoted your own words right back at you - far from being veiled, I thought that I was being quite blatant about my opinion of what you said.

I'm all for reasoned discourse, but if you jump into a discussion throwing about the kinds of phrases that you did, then I'm going to assume that you're not interested in a genuine discussion. If you really do want to talk and not just mock, ridicule and revile, then by all means continue and explain to me what it is about what Guinness said that you find intolerant.

Jonathan Boyd reply to Parrhasios

'He is intolerant, too, of non-evangelical approaches to the Gospel. He seems to assume that there is, internal to the Bible, a clear understanding of what truth is.'

Yes.


So you admit he's intolerant of any other position inside of Christianity that veers away from his understanding of the Bible. *His truth* being the only way to decipher it. When someone takes any position in life that they regard as the only way to see or do something-by its very nature, it makes them intolerant of other viewpoints if there's no compromise or pragmatism involved- or if there's no space left to allow someone else to hold a different view within the same subject matter and be seen as (equally) relevant.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hmm, never had a comment referred before. It was a reply to you Ryan_, sorry that it might be a while before it shows up. A lot of it was an expanded selection of quotes from Guinness' address at Lausanne to show more of the context of what he was saying.

Jonathan

It was probably the quotes what done it.

A few more quotes in context would definitely be useful; unfortunately the CT article only succeeded in making me think, 'Oh no, more of the same from my side of the house.' Lausanne and Os Guinness are household names in the evangelical church I know, but CT made it all seem a bit stereotypical.

If your post is removed for good maybe you could link us to the wider context.

Re: the article about atheism becoming the new religion...

"He said the recent advertising campaign by Richard Dawkins and other atheists on London buses was a perfect example of the “enthusiastic zeal” with which atheists were campaigning against Christianity and religion."

My 'tribal' instinct may tell me that I, as a Christian, am supposed to agree with this statement, but actually I don't. In fact it's highly questionable.

According to the bus campaign website, the 'infamous' poster was actually a response to an earlier Christian bus poster, which included a link to a website informing non-Christians that they were going to hell. Here's the comment from the humanist website:

"The Atheist Bus Campaign began when comedy writer Ariane Sherine wrote a Comment is Free article in June 2008 about the Christian adverts running on London buses. These ads featured the URL of a website which said non-Christians would burn in hell for all eternity."

It could be argued that the atheists were simply exercising their right to question Christian thought-crime damnationism, and that is as far as the 'enthusiastic zeal' went. Which of the following two viewpoints is the more 'zealous'?

1. There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

2. You will rise from the dead and will face the Judge and know that you rejected His kind and merciful answer. You will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his angels (demonic spirits).

How can #1 be considered a case of 'enthusiastic zeal' and a campaign against Christianity and religion, whereas #2 should be considered a legitimate message in accordance with what is termed the truth?

I disagree with both these positions. As a Christian, of course, I believe in God, and I don't see that unbelief is a necessary condition for enjoyment of life and freedom from anxiety (I hold the exact opposite view). I could only agree with #2 subject to so many qualifications, that I suspect that many fundamentalists would despair of me. I do believe that there are spiritual consequences to evil (and 'evil' is not the same as intellectual differences of opinion), but the crass formulation peddled by many (possibly most) evangelical fundamentalists is diametrically opposed to what I believe (I could say much more about this, but perhaps some other time).

But it is absolutely abundantly clear that #2 is a proselytising message and #1 is only proselytising to a far lesser and milder extent.

I was interested to read the following comment in the Guardian about the atheist bus campaign. Simon Barrow (a Christian) wrote the following:

"For what it's worth, as a Christian, I agree wholeheartedly with the slogan. The first part, anyway. It is indeed most probable that the kind of vindictive sky-god caricatured by the "new atheists", perpetuated by fundamentalists, and subtly compared to flying space teapots by over-eager Cif readers, does not exist."

I second that. If the 'God' being referred to in the advert is the 'God' who throws people into hell for simply committing thought crimes, then the only disagreement I have with the advert is the inclusion of the word 'probably'. If that is the only 'God' who could conceivably exist, then I suppose that would make me an atheist, since I emphatically do not believe in the existence of such a 'God'. However, I am not an atheist, because there is a God who does not fit this spiritually fascistic description.

It cannot be right for Christians to demand their right to proselytise and then 'be concerned' that the proponents of other worldviews also seek to gain converts. The attack on liberal Christianity is also insidious. The most 'liberal' biblical commentators I have ever encountered are evangelicals. If a verse of the Bible does not fit neatly into the evangelical magisterium, then it is twisted beyond all recognition. For example, how often is Romans 3:23 ripped out of context (even the context of its own sentence!): "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." without any mention of what immediately follows? "... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, BEING JUSTIFIED freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus..." The words "being justified" refer back to "all". There is nothing 'potential' or 'contingent' about it at all. This is a clear statement of the objective salvation Christ has won for everyone, and it presents a serious problem for those who have a vested interest in damning people to hell.

There are other examples I could give. It is simply not true that evangelicals are the ones who uphold the authority of the Bible. What so many of them seek to uphold is their highly selective (and liberal) interpretation of the Bible. Also their interpretations are often driven by pragmatism.

I was aghast to read Os Guinness write in the article:

"We must resist the powerful seductions of those who downplay truth for methodology..."

Wonderful! Please bring it on! And start with the church. Many doctrines have been formulated for purely pragmatic reasons, be it tithing as a cynical device to bring money into the church (and never mind an accurate biblical exegesis), or "everyone bar Christians is going to hell" (despite ignorance and the pressures billions of people live under through no fault of their own) and so this motivates us to evangelise etc. So many sermons harangue us to act in a certain way 'because of this or that biblical idea' - not because we have worked out that it makes sense logically, but simply 'because the Bible (apparently) says so'!

Hmmm. I must be feeling under the weather today. LSV sticking up for atheists? Whatever next....

Eunice (@ 2) -

"...whilst in the land of nod I was burgled last week..."

Very sorry to hear about this, Eunice. Please don't be away for long!

Well said LSV :) , it was an enjoyable read

Hello LSV,

"Hmmm. I must be feeling under the weather today. LSV sticking up for atheists? Whatever next...."

We live in strangely inverted times here on W&T lately. I receive varying degrees of support from christians on the question of whether Guinness was intolerant or not. And in the same week I find myself slightly appalled by my fellow atheist natmans poor grasp of even pretty simple reasoning and his fundie-like stubbornness to cling to it after multiple posters have explained it to him so clearly a number of times.

Strange times indeed.

LSV
I do not accept the view were someone feels that they can use the Bible in the same way as an a la carte menu. That is,to pick and choose what they like and what they don't. If anyone chooses to treat in such a way then they are rejecting it as the authoritive word of God.

@Peter K, Ryan, LSV etc

And I'm in the strange position of agreeing with LSV and Newthornley. If it actually meant anything at all the cognitive dissonance would be killing me.

LSV, just a quick response since I'm off to bed.

'how often is Romans 3:23 ripped out of context (even the context of its own sentence!): "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." without any mention of what immediately follows? "... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, BEING JUSTIFIED freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus..." The words "being justified" refer back to "all". There is nothing 'potential' or 'contingent' about it at all. This is a clear statement of the objective salvation Christ has won for everyone, and it presents a serious problem for those who have a vested interest in damning people to hell.'

If you're going to talk about verses being ripped out of context, shouldn't you bear in mind the context of the rest of the letter, not just one sentence? Chapter 9 is fairly clear not everyone is saved. Salvation requires union with Christ, which does not happen for everyone.

In fact, you don't even need to go as far as Romans 9; just go back one verse to 3:22 'the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe'. The 'all' receiving justification is not the entirety of mankind, but rather the entirety of those who believe. A rather important qualification and the reason why Paul later goes on to say that he'd cut his right arm off if it would make Israel trust in Jesus as the Messiah.

Absolutely correct Jonathan.
Paul's letter to the Romans is more than clear on it's teaching on sin.
You can't water it down or take anything out of context as you choose.

lol grokesx

Jonathan Boyd & Newthornley

To refer to your quote-

"In fact, you don't even need to go as far as Romans 9; just go back one verse to 3:22 'the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe'. The 'all' receiving justification is not the entirety of mankind, but rather the entirety of those who believe."

So where exactly does this put Mary and Joseph? Mary, the mother of God didn't convert to Christianity- she stayed a Jew. So how do you explain, the mother of the son of God, not being accepted into heaven because she didn't convert to Christianity?

The various writers who contributed to the Bible- their parents, grandparents damned to Hell for not being Christian? Isn't this all very selfish and self centred?

On a personal note, Christianity has been in this part of the world ( the Britsh Isles) as a dominant faith for maybe 1500 yrs. That's 60 generations of our ancestors. How do you then put Christianity- being saved and the kingdom of Heaven into the context of your direct ancestors? They didn't accept Christianity and the Bible as the word of God,because it didn't exist, but they are the people who made you and I. Yet by the logic people ascribe to this religion they are damned to hell?

Gandhi- a person who put the wellfair and human rights of people before anything else. A good person, a godly person, yet damned to hell because he was a Hindu and not a christian?

And what about those who uphold the Christian faith- or their sect of the Christian faith above all others and persecuted other Christians?

Such as King Philip II, Pope Gregory XIII and Francis Borgia who conspired to kill French Protestants during the Reformation- The St. Bartholomew's Massacre- where a 100,000 French Protestants were massacred in a week.To celebrate the massacre Pope Gregory commissioned Vasari to paint a mural of the massacre— which still hangs in the Vatican.

Then there's Cromwell- who slaughtered Catholics with his reformist zeal,in retaliation for a massacre of Protestants in Ireland

They killed under the banner of Religion. They killed people of the same religion, but of a different sect.These people believed in the authoritve word of God as set down by the bible. It is flawed animal human logic that uses violence as a justification for God's work, when they are only furthering an animal instinct for control and dominance.

It's this same animal control, not God, that dictates those of Christian, Muslim or Jewish belief have to accept these holy books as the word of God and then use it against mankind. It's pathetic. Each religion has so many sects all claiming their interpretation is right & the others are wrong- to the extent that people of the same religion might as well not be of the same religion, because they're not accepted by the other as legitimate. Humans make the distinctions. It's humans causing the problems for each other and it's human arrogance and animal depravity that cause most of the evil, heartache and death outside of natural disasters and disease

Hello Ryan,

If I could just ask you where you have sourced your thinking that Mary and those others you mentioned are not in heaven.

Could I suggest to you to read the New Testament book of Hebrews, chapter 11. It refers to, as an example, a number of people who lived and acted by 'faith' in God.

The key here is 'living and acting' by faith in God.

Many believe that they are Christians but they don't live or act by faith in God.

What man interprets Christianity to be can often be far removed from what the Bible teaches.

It is important that you recognise that.

Could I recommend that you consider looking at doing something like a 'Christianity Explored' course or even an 'Alpha Course'

They are very clear and Biblically sound as to teaching what Christianity really is.

Jonathan (@ 51) -

Thanks for your response.

It might surprise you to know that I am not actually a universalist. I am not disputing for one moment that there are people who are damned (i.e. who damn themselves, because they damn God), but a distinction has to be made between the legality of salvation, on the one hand, and the spiritual nature of those who hate God, on the other.

From a purely legal point of view there is a sense in which everyone is 'saved', since Jesus Christ objectively bore the sins of each and every person (quite irrespective of whether anyone accepts it or not). The legal problem has been solved. This is the only logical implication of the penal substitutionary view of the atonement. If the work of Christ on the cross is only efficacious once someone believes it, then that is a denial of its objective historicity. The atonement becomes purely subjective, and this kind of theology is really a form of subjective idealism.

But then you may ask: how can anyone be judged (or condemned) if legally everyone is saved? Well, the answer to that is very simple. Salvation is more than a legal position. God will not force anyone to go to hell, because they have fallen foul of some celestial 'small print'. Let's get rid of that vile nonsense. God is not in the business of playing cynical and cheap games with people's lives. Those who are condemned actually hate the love of God. What else does John 3:19 mean? This is the clearest reason given for condemnation in the Bible, and it has nothing to do with falling foul of the technicalities of the law or doctrines of God. It is clear that a person is condemned through their wilful rejection of the love and light that God has shown them. The idea that God is somehow legally obliged to torture someone forever in a pit of burning sulphur, because they died not having mouthed the right prayer is an insult to anyone's intelligence. Furthermore it is a serious contravention of James 2:13 - "Mercy triumphs over judgment". The first part of the verse makes clear that the reason people are damned has nothing to do with belief in correct doctrine, and everything to do with an active acceptance of mercy, including having lived a life of mercy, which flows from a nature of mercy.

Concerning the distinction between the legal and the spiritually 'real': suppose a criminal is in the dock and the judge tells him that he has been acquitted, and that this acquittal has nothing to do with any belief or attitude on the part of the defendant. He is free to go. But suppose that criminal's response is one of total hatred towards the judge and the person who paid the punishment for his crime. No amount of atonement will alter the fact that that person hates his 'salvation'. He may hate his salvation for all eternity, but it still does not change the legal position, namely, that he has been acquitted. What if some people find 'salvation' and 'acquittal' a torment? What if there are people whose experience of the love of God is actually hell?

So hell is nothing to do with a legal position, and everything to do with the attitude of those for whom the presence and reality of God is a torment. I believe that God himself is actually hell. ("Our God is a consuming fire" - Hebrews 12:29 and "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" - Hebrews 10:31). God has not created hell as a torture chamber for people who have fallen foul of his legalistic system, as if God were some kind of vindictive sadist. No, it is the love of God itself, which is a torment (a completely unintentional torment) to those who are evil. If that were not so, then there is no fundamental spiritual difference between the saved and the damned. The only difference would be one of legal position. This is patent nonsense.

In Matthew 25, the judgment of God has a direct relationship with what a person actually is (which bears fruit in what they do) - hence the distinction between the 'sheep' and the 'goats'. Jesus used this imagery of two different animals to show that the distinction between the saved and the reprobate is more fundamental than simply one of legal position. It is to do with the fundamental nature of what people are in their hearts and wills. And it is not simply about good works, since Jesus said that "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. A tree is known by its fruit" (Matthew 7:15-20). Therefore what we do flows from what we actually are.

The evangelical idea that salvation is dependent on ticking the right doctrinal boxes (in other words, legal positioning) is nothing other than gnosticism, which is a pagan heresy. The legal issue has been settled once and for all for everyone (not potentially but actually), as Romans 3:24 makes clear, so the whole question of salvation and damnation operates on a far more fundamental level.

I could say much more about this subject, but that's enough for now.

Sorry LSV, but in your response to Jonathan I would question your understanding of the Bible. It is not a book of mere mish mashed stories but one that contains a very consistent story running throughout it.

It would take too much space on this blog to try and summarise it but here is a good link...https://www.summaryofchristianity.com/

I'm sorry if it appears a bit basic but it is consistent with what the Bible teaches.

Newthornley -

Oh, there's no need to apologise for your inability and/or refusal to explain to me in what way I am wrong. Instead of fobbing me off with a few lines of 'put down', why not try taking me on? Go on. Let's see what you're really made of, and then we will discover who has the more accurate and coherent understanding of the Bible (please take careful note of the word understanding).

I look forward to a fuller reply from you.

Yes LSV but suppose you are in the dock and no evidence is offered against you? and yes the link that Newthornley helpfully supplies really is the pitiful extent of the case for the prosecution.

Hey Newthornley, thanks for your reply. Will read the chapter.

My point about Mary was, if so many Christians say non -Christians go to hell but heaven works retrospectively for the mother of jesus, even though she was jewish- what about all the other people who are good people and Christians, but whose ancestors weren't aware of Christianity. Ancestory isn't just some intangible concept, they were as real as you and I. Also shouldn't heaven apply to all good people regardless of faith? Would it count if someone beleived in a higher being and led a life- that if translated into Christian language would be 'living and acting' by faith in God. The deeper you get into researching Judaism,Christianity and Islam, they do seem rather death-cultish :s

@LSV (55)

We're covering a lot of ground here, but I'm not sure we've quite finished with Romans yet, so I wonder if you mind me addressing one point from your latest post and asking a question about your view of Romans? Maybe we can get on to the rest of your post after that.

Regarding the objectivity of the cross and how belief related to it, I wonder if it would be helpful to look at some other aspects of atonement i.e. ransom and union.

I think we would both agree that Christ's death is of sufficient value to act as a ransom (Mark 10:45) for the entirety of humanity - it is of infinite value. However where we differ is the question of how many people it actually ransoms. Obviously Christ couldn't die half a death or three-quarters of a death, or whatever, so the value of his death doesn't say anything about how many people he is paying for - just how many he could potentially pay for.

The New Testament talks about union with Christ - being united with him in his death and therefore being united with him in his resurrection. These passages I think tell us more about how it is that Christ gave his life as a ransom for. This is where we return to Romans. 6:5-10 talks about union with Christ and the people Paul is describing as united are later called the elect in Romans 8:28-33. The elect are those who believe, which is why the context of 3:22 is so important for 3:23. You didn't directly reply to what I said about that earlier talks about everyone when , so I wonder if you could share your understanding of what is says about belief? I'd even say that things are clearer in 10:10-11 where justification and salvation are linked with believing and confessing. And on to 10:14, 'How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed?'

Coming back then to what you said:
'From a purely legal point of view there is a sense in which everyone is 'saved', since Jesus Christ objectively bore the sins of each and every person (quite irrespective of whether anyone accepts it or not). The legal problem has been solved. This is the only logical implication of the penal substitutionary view of the atonement. If the work of Christ on the cross is only efficacious once someone believes it, then that is a denial of its objective historicity.'

I agree that the work does not become efficacious only when someone believes, however I dispute that Christ bore the sins of every individual. I think that the clear teaching of Romans as that he bore the sins of the elect and that the elect are marked out by belief or faith.

One more thing I'll reply to since it very directly related to what I've just said.
'The legal issue has been settled once and for all for everyone (not potentially but actually), as Romans 3:24 makes clear, so the whole question of salvation and damnation operates on a far more fundamental level.'

I assume you mean 3:23-24 'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus' since you're presumably referring to the all. Why do you insist that this must by all mankind when 3:22 talks about 'all who believe'?

@Ryan_ (53)

Forgive for being a tad cynical, but there are times when you act like you've spent some time researching Christianity. Your question about what happened to people before Jesus, which is a pretty common, basic question, is surely one you've found answers to in your research. Why are you asking us for an answer to something you've probably found answers to before?

@peterm2 (45)

I'd love to post the link to the transcript, but I suspect that it was removed because the site offers downloads in PDF format, which apparently is a big no-no for some unknown reason. Since I'm not allowed to quote Guinness and not allowed to post links to transcripts, I'm not sure how I can actually get you the information. If you Google for something along the lines of 'lausanne 2010 transcript guinness' you might find the same site as me.

LSV, If you feel 'put down' by my reply then I must apologise but it appears that you and I are not in agreement with what the 'gospel' is about.

You have pointed the finger at evangelicals, of which I am one.

My faith in Christ came through hearing the 'gospel' and over the past 25 years I have had no reason to doubt it in anyway.

Jonathan (@ 60) -

"...I dispute that Christ bore the sins of every individual. I think that the clear teaching of Romans as that he bore the sins of the elect and that the elect are marked out by belief or faith."

What about this verse from Romans...?...

Therefore as through one man's offence judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. Romans 5:18

So let's just interpret this verse according to the hermeneutic which you appear to subscribe to. It would seem that the work of the first Adam was forced on every person, whereas the work of the 'second Adam' was only 'offered' to all (or some?) people, and could only become real in their lives if they knew about it and then believed in it. In fact the Calvinists - with their view of limited atonement - can only say 'to some people', which is completely contrary to what this verse is saying! The language and logic of this verse is one of comparison between the two 'Adams', and therefore what was true of the first Adam is also true of the second (or 'last' - 1 Cor. 15:45) Adam in terms of influence on the whole of humanity. Just as the offence of the first Adam came to all men (i.e. people), so (in the same way) the righteous act of the second Adam came to all men. If the work of Adam:1 is forced on all people, then logically the work of Adam:2 is forced on all people. If the work of Adam:2 is only offered to all people as a possibility, then that would have to be true of the work of Adam:1. A faithful exegesis of this verse requires a fair and consistent comparison between the two elements.

Now the idea that the work of Adam:1 is forced on everyone through the agency of original sin, whereas the work of Adam:2 is only given to either a select few, or is merely 'offered' to everyone, but it can only be efficacious in their lives if they know about it and actively accept it, is a complete travesty of this verse. One would have to conclude that Paul was being extremely misleading.

We cannot have it both ways. If we accept a universalist position when it comes to sin (Romans 3:23), then logically we should accept a universalist position when it comes to the deliverance from sin. If we refuse to be consistent in this way, then we are doing violence to the logical argument in Romans 5.

Now I am well aware that the following verse states: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

The "many...many" of this verse would undermine universalism. But, as I have made clear, I am not a universalist. I hope you understand this. But I am a 'legal' universalist. Salvation - and condemnation - are not simply about legal position. If that were the case then there would be no real spiritual difference between the redeemed and the unregenerate. Jesus objectively bore the sins of each and every person (2 Corinthians 5:14-15), thus negating the legal judgment relating to the sin of Adam. The legal position has been settled for everyone. Therefore salvation and condemnation do not concern 'legal position' (with its divisive, superficial and cynical doctrinal box ticking), but the spiritual reality of the heart vis-a-vis the love of God. Therefore the idea of 'belief' has to do with something far more fundamental than mere doctrinal assent, and it is possible that God can put a measure of faith into the heart of one who is ignorant (how else does one explain the salvation of the righteous in the days before Christ?).

I need to ask you a serious question. Do you believe that there is actually a real spiritual difference between one who is saved and one who is condemned? Or is the only difference one of legal position - the mere fact that the saved person 'believes in Jesus'?

I am not sure whether you are a predestinarian Calvinist - in other words, you believe that God has deliberately created some people for no other reason than to condemn them to hell (either deliberately or permissively - which amounts to the same thing, since a permissive decision is a deliberate decision). I myself am thoroughly incapable of comprehending how an intelligent human being with normal feelings and a rudimentary grasp of the concept of justice can hold to such a position, but there you go! But I am aware that there are those who seem to be able to believe in this moral 'square circle'; personally I haven't the foggiest idea how they do it. All I can say is that it is no use trying to defend such a position from the Bible, since there are verses which irrefutably contradict it (Romans 3:23-24; 1 Timothy 2:4 and Ezekiel 18:32 among many many others). I am aware that there are some verses which can be interpreted in a certain way to support the idea (e.g. from Romans 9). Now either we accept that the Bible contains serious and irreconcilable contradictions, or we seek an understanding which resolves these apparent contradictions. As far as I can see, the verses that deny this concept of predestination are far clearer and more succinct and 'to the point' than those which seem to support it. Therefore I am inclined to interpret the obscure in the light of the plain, and not vice versa. The phrase 'being justified' in Romans 3:24 refers to 'all' in the preceding verse. That means that 'all are justified'. Sorry, but how else are we to read this?! Please explain. If 'being justified' only means 'being potentially justified', then are we to say that 'all have potentially sinned and potentially fall short of the glory of God'? We can't have it both ways! Or if only 'the elect' (i.e. some of the human race) are justified, then what on earth was Paul on about by writing that 'all...being justified'???

There is another position, which has been given the term Arminian. A popular view of Arminianism (not historically accurate, however) is what could be termed 'lottery evangelism'. If you happen to be in the right place at the right time and encounter an evangelist who makes you aware of what Jesus did for you, and you respond by 'believing' the message, then you will go to heaven when you die. Otherwise you go to hell by default (based on the curse resulting from the sin of Adam). Really, this is just a moderated form of Calvinism, in which circumstances decree the fate of the reprobate, rather than the decree of God. Of course, it is actually the decree of God, since God would have had to have decreed that circumstances should play this role. And then the Church is under a huge guilt trip to 'get out and evangelise' - or else! So much for a life of grace.

It may not surprise you to know that I thoroughly disagree with this view also, since it proposes an idea of condemnation based on default, which is contrary to John 3:19-21 (also Isaiah 5:3-4). The idea that tonight some poor precious Muslim soul in, for example, Iran, will be cast by God (who apparently 'loves' him) into the fires of everlasing hell for no other reason than that person failed to 'become a Christian' before he died, is just abhorrent. It makes a mockery of God's moral judgment, since it is true (and Romans 2:14-15 backs this up) that those who do not have the required 'specific' revelation still have the moral law written in their hearts, and therefore sufficient light to which they can respond (note that the Holy Spirit can convict people who have no knowledge of Jesus Christ - see Genesis 6:3, if you don't believe me on this point). Furthermore, their ignorance will be taken into account. Jesus acknowledged this in his reference to Sodom and Gomorrah and Tyre and Sidon in Luke 10:12-14 (despite their evil, the inhabitants of these cities will be shown some kind of mercy on the day of judgment, because of their ignorance).

The idea that doctrinal belief is a necessary condition for salvation was denied by Jesus during his ministry on earth. In Matthew 16:20 Jesus commanded his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ, the Son of the Living God (which was Peter's confession - v.16). The ordinary people thought that he was just a prophet (see v. 14). But their faulty and inadequate christology was no bar to Jesus healing and blessing them. Furthermore, Jesus referred to God as 'your Father' when speaking to the multitudes - see Matthew 23:9 (see also verse 1 which refers to Jesus' audience). So not only did these people not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, he did not want them to, and yet he acknowledged that God was their Father. The Bible is not very 'evangelical', is it??!

Take the parable of the Good Samaritan: did the Samaritan insist that the wounded man have a correct understanding of who his rescuer was, before he could save him? Perhaps the man was unconscious? This is a parable about loving your neighbour, which is a reflection of the love of God. So no one can say that this is 'not relevant' to salvation. Of course it is! Anything that concerns obedience to God relates to salvation - and 'loving your neighbour' is the second commandment.

The woman caught in adultery was forgiven by Jesus. "Neither do I condemn you". But there is not the slightest hint that this woman's salvation was dependent on her understanding of christology and evangelical soteriology. In fact the only condition was a moral one: "Go and sin no more."

I could go on and on and on concerning this subject. But I think I've written enough for now to call into question the simplistic cut-and-dried control theology of evangelicalism.

LSV,

That's another long post, but someone in the midst of it all, you have failed to address the issue of Romans 3:22. You brought up v. 23-24 with the accusation that evangelicals ignore the context. I've pointed out to you twice now the context of v. 22. Once you've responded to that, I'll be quite happy to respond to the rest of what you say, but I see little point in responding to other points until we've dealt with the very first issue you raised.

In the past you've been quite critical of the proof-texting habits of some evangelicals, who simply quote verses without context. It was a very valid criticism, but one that I suggest you may need to be wary of yourself. For instance you refer to Romans 5:18 as a clear universalist verse, when in fact the context, in 5:17 is of those who receive the gift, as distinct from the whole world. The question in Romans 5 is whether people will live with Adam:1 as their spiritual head, or with Adam:2 as their spiritual head. Adam:1 passes on death, whereas Adam:2 passes on life. The thrust of Paul's argument is that they are alike in that they have a representative role for many, but unalike in that one offers death, whereas the other offers. Not everyone under Adam:1 moves to be under Adam:2.

If you want to talk about the flow of Paul's argument, it would be a terrible injustice to ignore what he has just been saying about justification coming by faith. If that is the case, then clearly people without faith are not justified, therefore it makes little sense, in the wider context of Paul's argument, to suggest that people without faith are saved. That's very clear from the thesis he gives in 1:16-17 - 'For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”'

Now I think I've indulged you quite a bit, responding to the plethora of arguments you're throwing about, so I would appreciate a response to the first issue I brought back to you - Romans 3:22 and the context of salvation being for believers in Romans.

Boyd, I'm sure every question you can think of has been asked and answered before, but it's the first time I've asked. LSV's point about the Christian bus adverts, with a link to a website saying you're damned to hell if you're not a Christian is the reason the question came to mind.
Im lucky to say I haven't been raised in any particular set of religious beliefs. My parents thought it better to allow me to choose as an adult how I wanted to approach it. My own beliefs, without indoctination, are that every good soul, regardless of religion goes to Heaven.

Jonathan (@ 65) -

"Now I think I've indulged you quite a bit, responding to the plethora of arguments you're throwing about..."

"Indulged"? "Plethora of arguments"? "Throwing about"? Hmmm. Interesting choice of words. Please don't put yourself out trying to tame the wild man from the realms of the great unwashed. I am sure you have much better things to do in life!

However, since you have asked for a response concerning Romans 3:22, allow me to indulge myself in a few more 'desultory' arguments from my (I am sure, in your esteemed opinion) overheated imagination (although I prefer to see my points as reflecting a rather coherent understanding of the Bible)...

Where shall we start...? I know: Romans 2:25-29 (with a view to leading up to Romans 3:22).

Before I put my argument, let me just say that whatever Romans 3:22 means, it does not alter the fact that Romans 3:24 still refutes the doctrine of limited atonement. So if you 'win' 3:22, you still need to prove yourself concerning 3:24!! (I just thought I would throw that in, in case you're feeling overly optimistic).

Allow me quote Romans 2:25-29 in full:

For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Now why have I quoted all this to you, you may ask? Well, it sets the scene, doesn't it, concerning the nature of faith.

Circumcision was the outward sign of membership of the community of the chosen people. It was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17:9-14), and as we know - and as Paul goes on to explain - Abraham is the father of faith (see Paul's argument in Romans 4, where the concept of circumcision is picked up again.) The law demanded that a male could only be a member of the covenant community if he was circumcised (although even under the law is it not interesting that the outward sign of the covenant was, of course, hidden, being in a part of the body which is to be kept private? The use of the private part, of course, symbolises an even more 'private part' - the heart or inner man).

Now the Christian argument about 'faith' as outward conformity to doctrinal assent is a legalistic understanding not dissimilar to the function of circumcision. Just as circumcision was the 'outward' sign of membership of the community of the covenant, so outward conformity to a certain set of Christian requirements seems to be regarded as the necessary condition for inclusion in the only section of the human race, which (it is alleged) will avoid going to hell. This seems to be the Reformed position.

In Romans 2:26 Paul writes: "Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?" In other words, what really matters is not the outward sign of membership of the covenant people, but the condition of the heart, which is expressed in obedience to the moral law of God. It is clear that 'the righteous requirements of the law' do not include the law of circumcision, otherwise Paul has contradicted himself.

Paul then carries on his argument: "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God."

Here we see clearly that true faith is not to do with some kind of outward conformity to a religious community, but concerns the inner state of the heart, which is manifest in obedience to the morality which is consistent with the love of God. If we then jump over Romans 3 for a moment, we see that the same argument is carried on in chapter 4 where we read about the faith of Abraham, which is not dependent on conformity to an outward religious law, such as circumcision. 'Faith' is defined in spiritual terms, as a response to the grace of God.

Now allow me to backtrack to the beginning of Romans chapter 3. Paul anticipates an objection to the argument of the last few verses of chapter 2: "What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?" Why bother to ask this question if the people of the covenant (the saved or 'the elect') can easily be identified by some outward sign? It is clear that Paul realised that his argument - with its universal scope - was potentially offensive to those who love to restrict the 'elect' to an easily identifiable group (in much the same way that some evangelical Christians do today). Paul's answer is that the Jews do have an advantage in that to them were committed the oracles of God. As I am sure you recognise, Christianity is a continuation of this role of being guardians of the revelation of the Word of God. But the point of Paul's argument is that this role does not necessarily imply that those who are not guardians of the oracles of God (i.e. those who are outwardly 'non-Christians') are condemned. Why do I say this? Because salvation is a matter of the heart, as Paul has clearly stated in Romans 2:29.

Now I can anticipate what a possible objection could be to the point I am making: Paul is talking about the Jews, not Christians. Yes, that is true. But the same principle applies. Just as it is possible to be a Jew outwardly so it is possible to be a Christian outwardly. And also since it is possible to be a Jew inwardly (though outwardly a non-Jew), so the same argument can apply to Christianity. If you don't accept this, then what is the point of Paul's argument in chapter 8 of Romans, concerning the distinction between 'the carnal mind' and 'the spiritual mind'? The word 'carnal', of course, relates to that which is 'outward' or 'external', whereas 'spiritual', of course, concerns the inner man. So here we see a philosophical distinction, which can therefore apply to any dichotomy between the 'outward' and the 'inner' man. Just as it can apply to Judaism, so it can apply to Christianity.

So when we analyse the whole context of Romans 3 we see that Paul is giving us an understanding of 'faith' which is not dependent on outward conformity to some religious requirement. Romans 3:22 talks about 'belief', but in the context of Paul's teaching, this word describes the human response to the grace of God, which, of course, comes by the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. Now the Holy Spirit bears witness to Jesus Christ. I am not disputing that at all. But there are many reasons why some people fail to outwardly 'believe in Jesus', whether through ignorance or through false and oppressive theology. I am sure there are many people who, in their hearts, are responding to God who may even hate Christianity outwardly, thanks to a history of abuse they may have suffered at the hands of false and arrogant so-called Christians. Who is to say that these people are not 'Christians inwardly', even though they may be 'non-Christians outwardly'? (I am here applying the fundamental principle of Paul's argument in Romans 2:28-29).

If 'faith' and 'belief' are simply to be understood in doctrinal terms - or cannot exist unless some basic doctrinal requirement is met - then how do you explain Hebrews 11?

Did Abel believe in Jesus? Or Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, the prostitute Rahab, Gideon etc etc...?

In fact what does it say? "And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise." (Hebrews 11:39). Of course, they were all 'saved', but what was their faith in? It was clearly a response to whatever God was doing in their lives at the time. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1). That biblical definition of faith is rather general, don't you think?

Faith is simply a response of the heart to the grace of God. The idea that we can judge exactly who is of faith, or who is not, based on some cut-and-dried doctrinal criteria makes a mockery of the definition of faith in the Bible.

In the ministry of Jesus, what about the centurion, whose servant Jesus healed? "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!" (Matthew 8:10). Was the centurion a 'committed Christian'? The only revelation we have from the Bible is that the centurion recognised that Jesus was someone who possessed authority. That's it! It is highly unlikely that he would have known the true identity of Jesus, since (as I made clear in my last post) Jesus wanted to keep his true identity hidden from anyone other than his close circle of disciples. And yet the centurion was a man of great faith.

So I come back to Romans 3:22. Who are they who 'believe'? In accordance with the context of Romans 2-4, they are those whose hearts are right with God and who have responded to the grace of God in their hearts. The implication is that there are those who do not believe - i.e. who reject the grace of God. But the free gift of salvation has still objectively been given to all people. Some reject it and hate it. But it doesn't alter the fact that legally Christ died for all.

Either we understand 'faith' legalistically, or we understand it 'spiritually'. I think it's obvious how the Apostle Paul understood it.

Now since I have indulged myself in answering your question, you may possibly feel inclined to indulge yourself in responding appropriately.

Angels, pins, dancing anyone?

@LSV (67)

'Before I put my argument, let me just say that whatever Romans 3:22 means, it does not alter the fact that Romans 3:24 still refutes the doctrine of limited atonement.'

Context goes a long way to determining meaning, so how can that be a remotely logical assertion? A moment ago you were chastising evangelicals for ignoring context, yet here you're saying that it doesn't matter. Which is it?

'So if you 'win' 3:22, you still need to prove yourself concerning 3:24!!'

It's not a competition.

'Now the Christian argument about 'faith' as outward conformity to doctrinal assent is a legalistic understanding not dissimilar to the function of circumcision. '

Eh? Where'd that come from? If anything, I'd have thought that what I said about Romans 10 argues the very opposite. With the heart one believes (the inward component) while with the mouth one confesses (the outward dimension).

'Just as circumcision was the 'outward' sign of membership of the community of the covenant, so outward conformity to a certain set of Christian requirements seems to be regarded as the necessary condition for inclusion in the only section of the human race, which (it is alleged) will avoid going to hell. This seems to be the Reformed position.'

Not in my experience. Where did you get that idea from?

'Now allow me to backtrack to the beginning of Romans chapter 3. Paul anticipates an objection to the argument of the last few verses of chapter 2: "What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?" Why bother to ask this question if the people of the covenant (the saved or 'the elect') can easily be identified by some outward sign?'

I'm not sure what this has to do with disproving the notion of the elect and limited atonement. What you're talking about here is how the elect can be identified, not whether their number is limited or universal.

't is clear that Paul realised that his argument - with its universal scope '

What is universal about it other the fact that the elect can include Gentiles? The possibility of any individual being part of the elect is not the same as every individual necessarily being part.

'. But the point of Paul's argument is that this role does not necessarily imply that those who are not guardians of the oracles of God (i.e. those who are outwardly 'non-Christians') are condemned. '

Surely his argument is quite simply what he says in verse 25 - that circumcision has value only if you obey the law and no value if you do not i.e. outward signs do not have the same value as inward signs. Of course that does mean that the circumcised are not necessarily excluded form salvation, but then that's not being argued by anyone. Paul's argument here is directed at the Jews and their overconfidence in their circumcision. He's just been criticising them for their confidence in the law and by addressing the issue of circumcision he is addressing another objection a Jew might have to his earlier criticism.

'Just as it is possible to be a Jew outwardly so it is possible to be a Christian outwardly. And also since it is possible to be a Jew inwardly (though outwardly a non-Jew), so the same argument can apply to Christianity.'

Actually, I don't think you've gone far enough here. Paul isn't merely saying that you can be a Jew (or Christian) inwardly; he's saying that in order to really be a Jew (or Christian), you must be one inwardly. His argument isn't that someone could be a Christian without inward component, with the implication that there might be a lot more Christians than you think; he's saying that you can't be a Christian without the inward component, with the implication that there are fewer Christians that you think.

'So when we analyse the whole context of Romans 3 we see that Paul is giving us an understanding of 'faith' which is not dependent on outward conformity to some religious requirement.'

Again, this isn't quite the right emphasis. Paul has been talking about the worthlessness of outward conformity without faith, rather than the value of 'faith' that has no outward conformity.

'Romans 3:22 talks about 'belief', but in the context of Paul's teaching, this word describes the human response to the grace of God, which, of course, comes by the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. Now the Holy Spirit bears witness to Jesus Christ. I am not disputing that at all.'

Well, this at least we can agree on.

'But there are many reasons why some people fail to outwardly 'believe in Jesus', whether through ignorance or through false and oppressive theology. I am sure there are many people who, in their hearts, are responding to God who may even hate Christianity outwardly, thanks to a history of abuse they may have suffered at the hands of false and arrogant so-called Christians.'

Why are you sure of that? It sounds like nothing more than wishful thinking. The cahnge of heart that the Spirit brings is surely a powerful thing that brings about objective changes in people? Why else does Paul link confession with faith in Romans 10? That too is part of the context of Romans 3 and faith/belief. Belief is inward, but it as an outward companion in confession (or profession).

'Who is to say that these people are not 'Christians inwardly', even though they may be 'non-Christians outwardly'? (I am here applying the fundamental principle of Paul's argument in Romans 2:28-29).'

No, I think you've rather missed the point there. Paul is arguing that outward displays are insufficient by themselves, not that faith may be present without any outward sign. Take a look at 2:26-27 - the hypothetical man who is not outwardly circumcised, but is inwardly, still has an outward sign - he obeys the precepts of the law.

'If 'faith' and 'belief' are simply to be understood in doctrinal terms - or cannot exist unless some basic doctrinal requirement is met - then how do you explain Hebrews 11?'

Did I ever give such a definition for belief? And how does this have any effect on the number of the elect?

'Faith is simply a response of the heart to the grace of God. The idea that we can judge exactly who is of faith, or who is not, based on some cut-and-dried doctrinal criteria makes a mockery of the definition of faith in the Bible.'

Who suggested that? And isn't it somewhat beside the point - the point being that Paul teaches in Romans that salvation is limited to the elect. You're talking about how the elect are identified, not how many they are.

'And yet the centurion was a man of great faith.'

I'm not sure how this goes against my argument that salvation is limited to the elect and the elect are characterised by faith. This is just one more example of that.

'So I come back to Romans 3:22. Who are they who 'believe'? In accordance with the context of Romans 2-4, they are those whose hearts are right with God and who have responded to the grace of God in their hearts. The implication is that there are those who do not believe - i.e. who reject the grace of God. '

I agree.

'But the free gift of salvation has still objectively been given to all people. Some reject it and hate it. But it doesn't alter the fact that legally Christ died for all.'

You haven't said one word in support of that. In fact, you began your post by arguing that your words were going to be irrelevant in determining that. All you've talked about is how to identify those who have faith, not the extent of the atonement.

'Either we understand 'faith' legalistically, or we understand it 'spiritually'. I think it's obvious how the Apostle Paul understood it.'

Yes, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

"Angels, pins, dancing anyone?"

More like,

"The invisible unicorn is blue! Not pink!"

That's some really sophisticated intellectual engagement there, guys.

Jonathan (@ 69) -

Thanks for your response.

Bit busy this evening, so hope to reply tomorrow or later.

However, what do you think of this verse from Romans?:

"For God has committed them all to disobedience, that he might have mercy on all." Romans 11:32.

Who does the 'all' refer to? Just some people? Just the elect? If so, what does the word 'all' mean? And if 'all' can mean 'some' (which it obviously doesn't) then presumably the 'all' in Romans 3:23 shouldn't be understood universally either.

It's funny, isn't it, how some Christians are universalists when it comes to the work of the devil (the sinfulness of man), but cannot stomach the thought of God even desiring the salvation of all people. I have a theory as to why this is so. Perhaps I might share it some time, but it doesn't make for happy reading.

@LSV (72)

'Bit busy this evening, so hope to reply tomorrow or later.'

It's actually something of a relief to not have a full reply to respond to; I'm fairly busy too, so please take your time!

'However, what do you think of this verse from Romans?:

"For God has committed them all to disobedience, that he might have mercy on all." Romans 11:32.

Who does the 'all' refer to?'

It seems to be a case of all categories of people i.e. both Jew and Gentile, rather than every individual - it's a case of all without distinction, not all without exception. The context of chapter 11 is the fate of Israel and the question of whether God has rejected his people. Paul's response is essentially that both Jew and Gentile (i.e. all peoples) are saved by the same means: grace (v. 5). The reason why so many of the Jews have rejected Jesus is so that the gospel would spread to the Gentiles, so that they might be saved by the same grace (v.11). Paul's thinking here in terms of people groups, rather than individuals. The all includes a 'you' and 'they' who recur throughout the chapter, the 'you' being Gentiles believers in Rome, wild branches who are grafted on to the root of David, and the 'they' being Jews who had been cut off, but are grafted back in (v.24). Galatians 3:23-29 would be an example of the same thing.

'It's funny, isn't it, how some Christians are universalists when it comes to the work of the devil (the sinfulness of man), but cannot stomach the thought of God even desiring the salvation of all people.'

I'm sure that loads of Christians, evangelicals included, would love it if it turns out that everyone is saved. certainly wouldn't be complaining. I think you're being a little uncharitable here.

Jonathan - # 37 (and PeterM - # 36)

I always rather feel that it is actually one of the joys of W&T that we are (nearly) all a fairly intolerant bunch. I suspect Eunice certainly regards me as somewhat intolerant of her views - and, if she does, she is quite correct. I am definitely intolerant too, as I said in post # 31, of some evangelical positions. I don't know, however, that intolerance is always necessarily a bad thing and I am neither upset nor indignant at Guinness' intolerance.

I regard most expressions of intolerance as statements of limits-set to what the speaker finds acceptable. I can respect them as such, however much I disagree. Guiness is intolerant, I am intolerant, you are intolerant, Jesus was classically intolerant: we are people whose limits push us into words or action where clarity is of greater import than charity. PeterM is tolerant because, one feels, he takes care to express his very clear views in such a way that he shoulders the burden of difference.

You will see from the above that I do not think intolerance refers specifically to persecution or the active suppression of rights. Those are merely symptoms of intolerance. Except when we speak of it as an expression of a character trait, intolerance is specific: we speak of being intolerant of something. I did not mean to impugn Guinness' character (much), I sought rather particularly to highlight the effective exclusivity of his position. I call him intolerant because I read in his words the clear message that he cannot 'bear' a liberal understanding of what he regards as core Christian doctrines, they pain him so much that he must repudiate them utterly even at the expense of charitable expression. I think this is perfectly understandable, if deeply saddening.

I am intimately acquainted with intolerance because it informs perhaps my longest-standing non-familial relationship. One of my best and oldest friends, we have known each other since our teens, the first person to whom I have turned in a crisis, is an evangelical Presbyterian minister very much in the 'Reformed' tradition. We have maintained our very solid friendship over many years and through trying times for both of us only because we understand and respect each other's intolerances: we never, ever, therefore, under any circumstances, discuss religion, period. He could not bear my beliefs and I could not bear his consolations. It is painful, I am sure, for both of us, important as faith/devotion is for both of us, but it is a necessary recognition of the strength of deep conviction.

It is almost an aside, but you regard the isssue as central: this liberal does accept the uniqueness of Christ.

Parr, that was a very helpful post i outlining what you mean by intolerance. I don't quite agree with you in choosing to use the word 'intolerant,' howeverI now understand what you mean by it. I guess that I'm accustomed to it being used in an intensely pejorative and accusatory sense by many people, but evidently that's not the case here. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate.

LSV,

Just a quick question. It's nearly a week now since your last contribution to our discussion. Is it worth me continuing to check this thread for further responses, or have you decided not to sustain your argument?

Jonathan (@ 69) -

I hope to go through all your points one by one, but not in one single post! So there may be several posts coming your way (which, of course, the 'angels on pins brigade' are free to read. Ahhh, the village materialists keep us 'umble, don't they?).

Here's the first point:

My original comment: "Before I put my argument, let me just say that whatever Romans 3:22 means, it does not alter the fact that Romans 3:24 still refutes the doctrine of limited atonement."

Your response: "Context goes a long way to determining meaning, so how can that be a remotely logical assertion? A moment ago you were chastising evangelicals for ignoring context, yet here you're saying that it doesn't matter. Which is it?"

Yes, I agree that context determines meaning. The problem is: which way round is it? Are we to interpret Romans 3:22 in the light of 3:24 or vice versa?

Let us have a closer look at the two sentences of 3:21-26:

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Now I am not denying the importance of what is termed 'faith' with regard to righteousness and salvation. But then we need to define what we mean by 'faith' - which I was trying to do in my post #67 - and we shouldn't restrict our definition simply to Romans, since that is not the only book in the canon of Scripture! You seem to give the impression that the mention of 'faith' somehow supports the doctrine of limited atonement, since not everyone has 'faith'. I contend that it is possible for someone to be 'saved' from a legal point of view and yet 'not saved' from a spiritual point of view. So therefore Christ bore the sins of the unrepentant unbeliever legally, even though that person may choose to continue in unbelief. I see no problem with this, and, as I hope to go on to argue, there is scriptural evidence for this interpretation. The mechanistic predestinarian view presents a whole raft of problems, logically, morally and scripturally.

The phrase 'being justified' refers back to whom? It refers to the word 'all' mentioned in verse 23. Now how can this word 'all' possibly refer only to 'some' members of the human race (although, of course, it is understood that Jesus Christ is excepted)? Even Calvinists accept that 'all (meaning absolutely everyone) have sinned' - hence their 'T' of TULIP (Total depravity).

I suppose it could be argued that the word 'all' in v. 23 only refers to 'those who believe', referring back to v. 22. If that is the case (and you'll be happy to know that I am prepared to concede that it could be), then it is completely wrong for Christians (of any stripe) to quote v. 23 as referring to the whole human race. Of course, we accept that every human being has sinned, but we cannot base that argument on Romans 3:23.

If we do use verse 23 to declare every human being a sinner, then we have to accept that the phrase 'being justified' refers to everyone. The Greek word for 'being justified' is 'dikaioumenoi': the plural present passive participle of 'dikaioun' - to justify, hence 'being justified'. This participle, being a verbal adjective describing some particular noun, has the characteristics of an adjective, since it has to agree with the noun it qualifies in number, gender and case. It is clear from this that this phrase refers back to the word 'pantes' (all) in v. 23.

So how do we make sense of this?

Possibly three ways:

1. On the basis of v. 22, we accept that 'all' in v. 23 only refers to 'those who believe', which would make sense given the phrase 'being justified' in v. 24. However, this means that we cannot use v. 23 in the way we so often do.

2. The word 'all' in v. 23 refers to every member of the human race, and therefore 'being justified' refers to everyone (from a legal point of view), but that 'belief / faith' - which is not applicable to everyone - has a spiritual rather than legal meaning. Thus it's possible to be 'justified' legally, but condemned spiritually, in much the same way that a condemned criminal may be legally acquitted, but he is still an evil person in actuality, and therefore his evil will condemns him, quite irrespective of his status of legal acquittal. This then leads us to a discussion about the fundamental nature of salvation and condemnation.

3. The word 'all' in v.23 refers to every member of the human race, but the phrase 'being justified' can only be understood in a contingent sense - i.e. 'being potentially justified'. Every person's justification would be contingent on that person 'believing'.

It seems to me that the first two interpretations have some merit, but I cannot see how it is right to justify #3, since the concept of 'potentiality' is being read into the term 'being justified' (which is a point I made in my post #46 on this thread). That is not exegesis but eisegesis.

I am prepared to concede that the whole argument in Romans 3:9-26 is referring to the equal guilt of both Jews and Gentiles, and that the word 'all' in v. 23 refers to the restricted 'all' of v. 22 - "to all and on all who believe". However, as I have said, this has implications for the way we use v. 23 when referring to general human sinfulness.

There is a problem with this theory, however, when we look at verses 19-20:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

To ignore these verses is to do violence to the context. Clearly Paul is referring here to the whole human race (and every individual within it). So, in the light of this, it is difficult to see how the 'all' of v. 23 only refers to the elect (i.e. those who 'believe').

Now I suppose it could conceivably be argued that vv. 19-20 describe the general sinfulness of the human race, whereas v. 23 then applies that truth to the elect, to therefore highlight the fact that the salvation of the elect is based on grace and not works. I admit that this is a logical interpretation.

Even if this is the case, it does not necessarily support the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement, since there is nothing in this passage which suggests that God deliberately prevents anyone from believing (through a decretum horribile). All it is saying is that all those who believe have sinned, and therefore they are saved on the basis of God's grace.

Concerning those who don't believe: is their unbelief a rejection of the gift of faith given to all by God, or is their unbelief the result of divine neglect (or even wilful rejection) through a mysterious decree? I have always rejected (and will always reject) this second idea. It makes no sense logically and morally and there is abundant evidence in the Bible to condemn it. I hope to say more about this in due course.

More anon...

Jonathan -

Part Two coming up...

My original comment: "Now the Christian argument about 'faith' as outward conformity to doctrinal assent is a legalistic understanding not dissimilar to the function of circumcision."

Your response: "Eh? Where'd that come from? If anything, I'd have thought that what I said about Romans 10 argues the very opposite. With the heart one believes (the inward component) while with the mouth one confesses (the outward dimension)."

My original comment: "Just as circumcision was the 'outward' sign of membership of the community of the covenant, so outward conformity to a certain set of Christian requirements seems to be regarded as the necessary condition for inclusion in the only section of the human race, which (it is alleged) will avoid going to hell. This seems to be the Reformed position."

Your response: "Not in my experience. Where did you get that idea from?"

Both these points are really one and the same issue. It concerns the 'badge of faith'. I made the point that Paul is arguing from Romans 2:25-29 that the 'true Jew' is one who is a Jew inwardly and not a Jew outwardly, and I was applying the same principle to Christianity.

Now does this approach to a biblical passage have validity, or not?

There are possibly two ways we can interpret this passage:

1. It is just talking about the Jews and the fact that Christianity is the true Judaism, even though Christians do not need to get circumcised. However, Christianity still has its own outward sign of the covenant (which is the outward profession of faith in Jesus Christ, without which a person cannot be saved). We should not try to find anything more in the passage than that simple point.

2. Paul is certainly talking specifically about the Jews and their practice of circumcision, and this is immediately relevant in the context of the early church. However, this can be read as an example of the nature of true spirituality, which is not dependent on outward 'badges of membership', but on the condition of the heart towards God. So therefore what is true of Judaism is also true of Christianity. Thus we can legitimately paraphrase Romans 2:28-29 in this way: "For he is not a Christian who is one outwardly, nor is the sign of membership of the covenant people that which is outwardly manifest; but he is a Christian who is one inwardly; and the sign of membership of the covenant people is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God."

I hold to the second interpretation, and I do so for the following reason:

Paul explains the nature of what it means to be an 'inward Jew' - it is "of the heart", it is "in the Spirit" and it is not "in the letter". Furthermore the 'praise' (i.e. acknowledgment) of this condition of being an 'inward Jew' is not "from men, but from God" - in other words, since it is God who sees the heart rather than man, and since man is limited to assessing people on the basis of outward criteria, then it follows that the sign of membership of the covenant people may not necessarily be outwardly manifest.

If point #1 above were true, and Paul is simply talking about circumcision, and not making a general point about the fundamental distinction between the outward and the inward sign, then what sense does v. 29 make? If being a Christian is dependent on outward signs, in the same way that being a Jew is dependent on circumcision, then it would not be true that this condition would be "in the Spirit and not in the letter" and the praise of it would certainly be from men (and perhaps also from God, but not necessarily).

Now I can anticipate an objection: we need to be Christians both outwardly and inwardly. It's a matter of 'both-and' not merely 'either-or'. Well, of course, there is nothing wrong with being a Christian outwardly, just as there is nothing wrong with being circumcised. Paul makes this point in 2:25 and 3:1-2. But he also says the following: "...if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?" Rom. 2:26. Now since I have already proven (at least to myself, at any rate!) that Paul is using the example of circumcision to make a general point about the distinction between the outward and inward signs of membership of the people of God, then the argument in 2:26 can be applied to outward versus inward Christianity. So I can paraphrase this verse as follows: "...if a person who does not possess any outward sign of adherence to Christianity keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his lack of an outward sign be counted as a sign of membership of the people of God?"

Now I think (for the reasons I have given) that this argument shows that it is possible for someone to respond to God in his heart, even though there may be all sorts of reasons why he may not outwardly subscribe to the Christian faith. And since faith is simply "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1), and since (in Hebrews chapter 11) we are given a roll call of faith of those people who lived and died before Christ, and therefore could not have had a specific 'belief in Jesus', then it follows that legitimate faith may be 'intellectually unconscious' for some people (i.e. not consciously formulated in terms of a Christian creed).

Now I know that this may sound extremely liberal to some people, but it explains the work of the sovereign God among the many billions of people who have lived and died ignorant of the Christian gospel (and the 'ignorant' include those who have been fed a distorted understanding of the gospel, which may conceivably include some of our friends on W&T! Who knows? Maybe or maybe not.). In fact, Romans 2:14-15 supports this idea - that there is a witness to those who are ignorant, and God judges them on the basis of the light he has given to them. Remember that John 3:19-21 explains clearly the nature of God's judgment, and it is based on the response to light that has been given. The idea that God could condemn someone who is simply ignorant is not a biblical idea (also thoroughly refuted by Luke 23:34, revealing the heart of God towards the ignorant.)

I made a comment about the 'Reformed position'. That is based on what I have experienced and encountered in my Christian life.

I think the idea of the sovereignty of God is more far-reaching than Calvinists claim. For instance, if God wants to save someone who dies in ignorance (say, as a Muslim), then why can't the sovereign God do that? Those who say that God is sovereign, on the one hand, and yet he can only save those who are 'Christians', on the other, seem to be contradicting themselves. The Calvinists tend to say that we have no right to dictate to God. I would say to that: 'Amen'. So therefore we have no right to tell God that he cannot save certain people. Of course, I know what the response will be: "God has revealed in his Word the basis for salvation, and so we must submit to that without question." Yes, but that means we need to decide how to interpret this Word. After all, Proverbs 4:7 commands us to "get understanding". And that is precisely why I am writing these posts.

Part Three coming up soon...

Logica #78- I agree with your interpretation. One major obstacle for humanity is it can't see the content of a persons heart & people can't use each religion as a badge of ownership of God. By doing that, people are trying to take out the spiritual content of an inward connection and replacing it with a letter-of-the-law outward content, devoid of spiritual connection. We already have common law. We don't need another layer on top - otherwise you end up with Sharia. Is that what Christian fundamentalists want? Christian sharia law? It seems the wackier and more extreme Islam becomes ,there are branches of Christianity stretching out to match it.

@LSV (77 & 78)

Thanks for the comprehensive replies. Let's see how far I get before bed beckons!

'Yes, I agree that context determines meaning. The problem is: which way round is it? Are we to interpret Romans 3:22 in the light of 3:24 or vice versa?'

I actually think that we need to interpret them both in the light of Paul's argument up to this point, with particular reference to the start of chapter 3.

'You seem to give the impression that the mention of 'faith' somehow supports the doctrine of limited atonement, since not everyone has 'faith'.'

I see it as more the case that it doesn't support the case you originally made, of unlimited atonement. So much of Romans is about breaking down false distinctions between Jew and Gentile. 3:9 says that 'both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.' The 'no-one' of v. 10-12 and the 'all' of v. 22-23
there is an all without distinction - Paul says as much in v. 22 where he says 'For there is no distinction.' To read it as an all without exception is therefore a major exegetical error. Paul's concern here is for people groups, not individuals and perhaps its the sign of the individualistic age we live in that you're reading it that way.

Therefore:
v.22 says that both Jews and Gentiles become righteous through faith.
v.23 says that both Jews and Gentiles have sinned and are in need of grace
v.24 says that both Jews and Gentiles are justified by grace

Where evangelicals have gone wrong is perhaps in using this passage in an individualistic sense where really Paul is talking about lack of distinction. Having said that, there are implications for individuals. If both Jews and Gentiles without distinction have sinned, then all Jews and Gentiles are sinners. If both Jews and Gentiles are saved by faith, then the emphasis here is on the means by which they may be saved, not on the certainty of salvation for every individual.

'I contend that it is possible for someone to be 'saved' from a legal point of view and yet 'not saved' from a spiritual point of view.'

I don't see how that can possibly be consistent with the holy, just character of God. If legally everyone is saved, then how can they be spiritually unsaved? In Romans 8, when Paul asks who is left to condemn Christians if Christ doesn't condemn them, isn't his point that because they are legally fine with Christ, they are consequently saved? How could those words reassure if legal salvation was no guarantee of spiritual salvation? It's seems to be introducing degrees of salvation in a way that would be akin to saying 'she's a little bit pregnant.'

'It seems to me that the first two interpretations have some merit, but I cannot see how it is right to justify #3, since the concept of 'potentiality' is being read into the term 'being justified' (which is a point I made in my post #46 on this thread). That is not exegesis but eisegesis.'

Or option 4: It's an all without distinction and Paul is referring to the method of salvation, rather than the potential or actual, or whatever else you can think of. The same method of salvation is available to both Jew and Gentile.

'Now I suppose it could conceivably be argued that vv. 19-20 describe the general sinfulness of the human race, whereas v. 23 then applies that truth to the elect, to therefore highlight the fact that the salvation of the elect is based on grace and not works. I admit that this is a logical interpretation.'

I think that what I've said so far deals with this. v. 23 describes the method by which anyone is saved, the method being the same for both Jews and Gentiles alike - hence 'all.' Having thought about it more, I would concede that you can't take a doctrine of the elect out of this passage, however neither does it dispute it. In a sense, this passage is a bit of a red herring for us because it's about the scope of salvation in terms of people groups, not in terms of individuals. We both agree that people will be saved from every people group without distinction, so we agree with the main thrust of Romans 3. Trying to talk about unlimited atonement vs. particular redemption on the basis of this passage isn't really going to get us anywhere.

'Even if this is the case, it does not necessarily support the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement, since there is nothing in this passage which suggests that God deliberately prevents anyone from believing (through a decretum horribile). All it is saying is that all those who believe have sinned, and therefore they are saved on the basis of God's grace.'

I agree. Though I would add the caveat that I don't generally talk about stopping people believing, because you don't talk about stopping a blind man from seeing. The default state of people is to reject God and not believe and it takes his intervention for people to start believing. Really that's what total depravity boils down to.

'Concerning those who don't believe: is their unbelief a rejection of the gift of faith given to all by God, or is their unbelief the result of divine neglect (or even wilful rejection) through a mysterious decree? I have always rejected (and will always reject) this second idea. It makes no sense logically and morally and there is abundant evidence in the Bible to condemn it. I hope to say more about this in due course.'

Remind me to come back to this later when we've dealt with the rest of what we've discussed. We seem to have so much to say on each topic that I want to keep replies a manageable length.

'Both these points are really one and the same issue. It concerns the 'badge of faith'. I made the point that Paul is arguing from Romans 2:25-29 that the 'true Jew' is one who is a Jew inwardly and not a Jew outwardly, and I was applying the same principle to Christianity.'

To a large extent we agree about this passage. certainly it is the case that Paul is talking specifically about Jews, circumcision and their reliance on outward badges of faith, saying that the state of the heart is more important. There's plenty of Old Testament precedent for such a reading e.g. Psalm 51, David talking about the sacrifice that God really finds pleasing, etc. Obviously if it possible for one group to wrongly rely on an outward sign of faith without true inward faith, then it is possible fore other groups to make this mistake.

So we agree that an outward sign counts for nothing without an inward change. Where we disagree is on the idea that there could be an inward change without an outward sign of some sort. There are quite a few places in the New Testament where the idea of fruit comes up, Jesus himself talks about fruit quite a bit, though not always using that particular word. For instance he says that the disciples will be known by the love they have for one another and what he says about the sheep and the goats, about people doing things for each other actually doing things for him, etc. Clearly there is an expectation that inward faith will manifest in outward ways. The book of James is very much about, emphasising that faith without works is dead.

Returning to Romans, I agree that being a Christian is not dependent on outward signs - Romans 2 makes that fairly clear. However it is equally clear from other parts of Romans (and the rest of the Bible) that genuine Christian faith is displayed by outward signs. I find what you say about keeping the law inwardly somewhat confusing since so much of the law is visible, largely because so much of it concerns public worship or life in community. There is no concept of the anonymous Christian in the Bible - the whole thing points towards a visible, public faith in the midst of, as a part of, a community of faith, without communities of the world.

'Now I think (for the reasons I have given) that this argument shows that it is possible for someone to respond to God in his heart, even though there may be all sorts of reasons why he may not outwardly subscribe to the Christian faith.'

To this point, you have artfully avoided any particular response to Romans 10 - I'm curious about how you square this belief with what it says there about professing belief?

'And since faith is simply "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1)'

That's a sufficient description of faith, but not a comprehensive one, a distinction I'm sure you can appreciate.

'and since (in Hebrews chapter 11) we are given a roll call of faith of those people who lived and died before Christ, and therefore could not have had a specific 'belief in Jesus', then it follows that legitimate faith may be 'intellectually unconscious' for some people (i.e. not consciously formulated in terms of a Christian creed).'

I'm not sure that's entirely applicable; after all these were people who trust in the grace of YHWH. Is there anyone in the role call who didn't have a relationship with YHWH or trust in his grace? If not, then what is in the logic in generalising beyond that?

'Now I know that this may sound extremely liberal to some people, but it explains the work of the sovereign God'

I wonder if we sometimes try to explain too much. In Romans 9, Paul offers a partial explanation of the issue, but also sort of shrugs his shoulders and says that God can do what he likes and doesn't have to explain himself - which is pretty much the answer Job gets from God himself.

'In fact, Romans 2:14-15 supports this idea - that there is a witness to those who are ignorant, and God judges them on the basis of the light he has given to them.'

I agree with the first part, that there are witness to the ignorant, though I don't see where you're finding the second part in the those verses, nor do I see any suggestion that every ignorant person has a witness to hear from. Paul there is surely talking about the perilous situation of being someone with knowledge and misusing it, rather than saying anything about the ignorant? Dare I say 'eisegesis?'

'Remember that John 3:19-21 explains clearly the nature of God's judgment, and it is based on the response to light that has been given.'

Again, I don't follow your logic. Could you explain? John 3 as far as I can see, says that people live in the darkness and come to the light via the truth. I don't see anything about a response in proportion to the light they have. In fact, isn't the thrust of John 3 that there is no condemnation for those who believe, with the implication that those who do not believe are condemned? It doesn't get much clearer than John 3:36 - 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. '

'The idea that God could condemn someone who is simply ignorant is not a biblical idea (also thoroughly refuted by Luke 23:34, revealing the heart of God towards the ignorant.'

Asking that the ignorance of some not be held against them is not logically equivalent to saying that no-one's ignorance is held against them. Besides which, Romans 1 is considerably clearer that ignorance is no excuse because no-one can truly claim to be ignorant.

'I think the idea of the sovereignty of God is more far-reaching than Calvinists claim. For instance, if God wants to save someone who dies in ignorance (say, as a Muslim), then why can't the sovereign God do that? Those who say that God is sovereign, on the one hand, and yet he can only save those who are 'Christians', on the other, seem to be contradicting themselves'

I've yet to encounter anyone who says that. Really, it reads like a caricature of the Reformed position. Speaking for myself, as one who regards himself as Reformed, I would say that God can do what he wants, but has chosen a particular method of salvation. I would also say that God does not contradict his own nature, therefore whatever means of salvation he uses, must be both loving and just.

'The Calvinists tend to say that we have no right to dictate to God.'

No-one does. Neither does anyone have any right to deny what God has revealed. It's all well and good to say that God could have done a particular thing, but if he says that he did something else, then whatever he could have done isn't terribly relevant. For instance, God could have chosen the French as his special people, but he didn't; he went with the Israelites. Just because God can do something does not mean that he did or does or will.

'Of course, I know what the response will be: "God has revealed in his Word the basis for salvation, and so we must submit to that without question."'

Yep.

'Yes, but that means we need to decide how to interpret this Word. After all, Proverbs 4:7 commands us to "get understanding". And that is precisely why I am writing these posts.'

And I'm grateful for the time you're putting into this. Though my wife wishes I would just come to bed.

'Part Three coming up soon...'

Good thing it hasn't arrived. I'll be in trouble if I'm up any later! Perhaps we need a support group for spouses of commenters - 'Will Crawley stole my husband!'

@Ryan_ (79)

I confess that I find your post a little confusing. What does Sharia law have to do with anything we're discussing? We're discussing who is saved by Christ's atoning death and what, if anything, marks them out. There has been some discussion of whether there should be visible signs accompanying faith i.e. does faith make a difference to someone's life, but nothing about imposing rules on anyone. I'm not sure if you've really understood the discussion.

I wasn't referring to your discussion specifically! I was adding my own thoughts. Sharia is a natural progression of the Koran when it's obeyed , letter-to-the-law. It's easy for someone who's a devout Christian to somehow sanitise their own beliefs yet see outward Islamic obedience to the koran as barberous.

LSV "God revealved in his word the basis of salvation, so we must submit to that without question"
"yep"- was your reply

Fundamentalist Islam with outward obedience to the koran and sharia naturally follow on and influence - sometimes replace common law. So the question of what's pivotal to salvation becomes an issue for everyone in society , regardless of their personal views, as it infiltrates into laws and attitudes not everyone will share. This is the over reach of religion many people have issue with and this is why the outward obedience of religion becomes a control mechanism rather than anything innately spiritual.It's a set of people taking control of God, saying this is what God wants. No one set of people or set of holy books have that right

The reference to Islam is because the idea of seeing the Bible as the letter-of-the-law word of God that has to be outwardly obeyed without question is as alien/destructive/divisive to many as Fundamentalist Islamic belief- however homely or natural it may appear to conservative Christians

@Ryan_ (82)

'So the question of what's pivotal to salvation becomes an issue for everyone in society , regardless of their personal views, as it infiltrates into laws and attitudes not everyone will share.'

To an extent I agree. If salvation is by grace, then an attitude of grace should filter out into society as Christians act as salt and light in the world. That's not the same as Christians seizing control of government and enforcing some sort of conformity to Christian morality though. Surely anyone who expresses a view publicly on any subject has some sort of influence on society - what makes a Reformed view of salvation different here?

'This is the over reach of religion many people have issue with and this is why the outward obedience of religion becomes a control mechanism rather than anything innately spiritual.'

I'm sorry Ryan, but I still don't follow. You're saying that anyone who has a particular view of salvation is trying to control people? I don't see where the supposed overreach is occurring. Neither do I see what is unspiritual about believing that God can and does communicate clear truth to us on certain issues. If anything, I'd say that's more spiritual than deciding that God can't reveal anything clearly.

'It's a set of people taking control of God, saying this is what God wants. No one set of people or set of holy books have that right'

Let's do a little thought experiment here Ryan. Imagine for a moment that God exists and desires to communicate with mankind. He reveals himself to particular individuals and leaves written revelation for the whole world. When people try to follow God's revelation and affirm it as truth, are they taking control of God, or are they being obedient?

It seems to be that you're taking some concept of God as a mysterious, impersonal entity, who doesn't make himself known to people and extrapolating from this belief that it is impossible for a personal, communicating, revealing God to exist and in fact wrong for anyone to suggest this is true - which is itself a truth claim about God that by your own logic, constrains him in a way that no-one has a right to do.

@Ryan_ (83)

Think of it more this way: faith in God should bring about real change in people's lives. The Bible talks about Christians being new creations who are salt and light in the world. It's about positive changes in the life of individuals, leading to a positive impact on their community.

Inevitably, we all have some sort of impact on the world around this. The question isn't 'will you have an impact,' but rather 'what sort of impact will you have.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you elaborated on what it is about such a notion that is comparable with Sharia Law and which aspects you view as harmful. At the moment, all I'm really seeing is alarmist hyperbole with no substance.

Jonathan -

Here is a continuation of the discussion on Romans...

I was hoping to go systematically through your points in your post #69, but we seem to be darting around a bit, and I may have to adapt, as the discussion progresses. So if I have missed out something important, please shout. I also want to look at Romans 10.

From your post #69:

My original comment: "So when we analyse the whole context of Romans 3 we see that Paul is giving us an understanding of 'faith' which is not dependent on outward conformity to some religious requirement."

Your response: "Again, this isn't quite the right emphasis. Paul has been talking about the worthlessness of outward conformity without faith, rather than the value of 'faith' that has no outward conformity."

I don't quite agree with you on this. There is an interesting phrase in Romans 2:29, which has a bearing on this: "...whose praise is not from men but from God." In the context, Paul is making a distinction between outward circumcision and the circumcision of the heart (inward circumcision). We know from Genesis 17:11 that circumcision was "a sign of the covenant" between God and the people of Israel. This outward sign of the covenant has now been replaced with another sign - the circumcision of the heart. Outward circumcision is something which can be seen by man (although, of course, the fact that it is a sign in the private part of the body tells us that its symbolism speaks of a sign in an even more private part: the heart). So outward circumcision is something which can elicit the praise of men. But the inward circumcision only elicits the praise of God. Now doesn't this tell us that the sign of the new covenant is something which can be hidden from the eyes of man? I see this as the logical implication of what Romans 2:25-29 is saying. If the sign of the covenant (membership of the elect) has to, at least, include something outward then how can it be true that the 'praise' (the positive acknowledgement) of this thing is "not from men but from God". The whole point of an outward sign is that it is open to the assessment and recognition of men, but this is not the characteristic of the sign of the new covenant.

So while an outward sign is important - and Paul makes this point in Romans 3:1-2 concerning the outward witness of the Jews - it is not necessarily essential for salvation. If someone has that inward sign which only God can see, then that is sufficient. I don't see how else one can read Romans 2:29, and particularly the phrase I referred to.

Now coming to Romans 10 -

I am not going to attempt a full exposition of Romans 10 now, since it is late, and therefore I can only restrict myself to a few thoughts. I hope to expand on these thoughts in due course.

Paul begins the chapter with the words: "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

Note that I have highlighted the word 'knowledge'. The knowledge that Israel needed was a true understanding of the righteousness of God, which comes through the grace of God in Christ. Their zeal for God was based on outward conformity to legalism, rather than as a result of the transforming work of the grace of God in their lives. Now clearly, this grace was to come to them through a proper understanding of what Jesus Christ had done for them on and through the cross.

So clearly Paul is saying that the Jews needed a knowledge of Christ. I am not, in any way, denying that. But clearly this 'knowledge' was not simply a legalistic formula to which people were required to conform, but it was a spiritual understanding which has a personal transforming effect on their lives. If the knowledge of Christ is merely a legal formula, then the Jews are back to square one, and they have simply substituted one form of legalism for another.

Thus the emphasis is clearly on spiritual transformation and deliverance from the bondage of legalism. And yes, this comes through knowledge of Jesus Christ.

So while I am not denying that this passage is affirming the need to know Christ (in terms of outward profession), we do need to be clear that these verses rule out any concept of legalistic conformity.

It must be remembered that Paul has developed an argument about God's grace by looking at the difference between the religious backgrounds of the Jews and the Gentiles. In Romans 3:1-2 Paul is affirming that to the Jews were committed the oracles of God. And, as we believe as Christians, the Old Testament testifies of Christ (see John 5:39) and that Jesus Christ is the Messiah come to fulfil the Law. All the teaching in, e.g., Hebrews testifies of this fulfilment.

Now, given the religious background of the Jews, Paul is saying that the only way the Jews would be free from the legalism of their own law, is by coming to a conscious faith in Christ, since he is the fulfilment of that law. Thus there is a necessity for those living under the Old Testament law to hear the gospel.

However, what about the Gentiles, who have come from a completely different background? Of course, they need to hear and respond to the gospel. But there is a strange argument in Romans 10 concerning them:

"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? 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!' But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, 'LORD, who has believed our report?' So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: 'Their sound has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.'"

Paul deploys arguments based on quotations from the Old Testament to (apparently) support the idea that without a conscious and outward profession of faith in Jesus Christ no one could be saved. But is this argument relevant to those who were living in Old Testament times? What exactly was the 'gospel of peace' of Isaiah 52:7, which Paul refers to? Did it include what we would understand by the Christian gospel? How could it, in its historical context? And then what about the quote from Isaiah 53:1 concerning the suffering servant? How accurately were the immediate hearers of Isaiah's prophecy meant to understand this?

But the most interesting quotation is from Psalm 19:4 (and this brings me on to the Gentiles) - "Their sound has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world."

This is the saying Paul uses in order to answer his own question in Romans 10:18: "But I say, have they not heard?" And he begins his answer: "Yes indeed". Now this is the context of the necessity of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ!

Paul is saying that the message of the gospel has gone out to all the world, and it did so in Old Testament times, at the time Psalm 19 was written! Don't you find that rather strange? If we understand the gospel in highly specific 'evangelical' terms, then how can Paul's comment possibly be true? Have all peoples heard the 'Christian' gospel?

When we look at the context of Psalm 19, it is clear that it speaks of what we term 'natural theology' (the argument from design no less!!):

"The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world."

I assure you that the quote in Romans 10:18 is definitely Psalm 19:4, as it is an exact quote from the Septuagint.

This natural theology harmonises with Paul's statement in Romans 1:19-20. A certain basic knowledge of God from creation is sufficient for salvation, and God's wrath is manifested on those who reject that revelation. I don't see how these verses can be understood any other way.

So it is clear that even Romans 10, with its specific emphasis on the need to profess Christ, bears witness to a more general saving revelation of God. Therefore it is perfectly biblical to say that some people may be saved who possess a knowledge of God which may fall short of the specific Christian revelation. If that is not the case, then what does Romans 10:18 mean with its argument supported by Psalm 19:4?

I know that I haven't analysed every verse in Romans 10, but these are just a few initial thoughts.

More anon...

LSV,

Just skimmed through your latest post and there's plenty of meat for us to chew on. I probably won't be able to get any reply to you today and likely not tomorrow - but that may well be a welcome respite. In the meantime though, I'd like to voice my appreciation of the time and effort you're putting into this discussion. Hopefully it will sharpen us both - at the very least I think it's making us look closely at scripture and test our beliefs, which personally I'm finding helpful. Hope the same is true for you as well. I also appreciate the reasonably tone of the conversation thus far. There is a certain bluntness to some of what we're both saying, but I perceive that to be coming form hurried honesty, rather than condescension, so thank you.

What if Romans is wrong?

Who says it's not?

Jonathan Boyd- Try and see my replies as musings,not alarmist reaction. Remove the emotional reactive qualities you feel are stressed. It's much easier to communicate when people aren't having to defend themselves.

There are many areas of Christian religious culture that appeal to me. Quiet reflection, prayer, silence

In many ways I'm sure most people who write on this blog want peace, harmony and to be able to operate in a much more understanding, supportive, nurturing environment. However, it's that much harder when we confuse fighting our position with resolving things.

Christianity when channelled healthily is a force for good and a force for progress.

Many people here and in the west still consider themselves to be Christians, and I think society functions pretty well with a liberal adaptation of Christianity.

The closer you zoom in however, and notice the differences between sects of Christianity and their interpretations , problems start to arise on how anyone can claim to take the Bible as literal - adhere to it -and claim to be more legitimate than any other sect.

By claiming it's the literal word of God- not in any way teinted by human translation- you would have to adhere to all of it, not a mish mash of ideas.

Interestingly, in this book- The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible https://www.ajjacobs.com/books/yolb.asp - he describes that even fundamentalist Christians pick and choose what they find relevant.

We live in a secular society that allows people their religious freedoms, this is how it should be. A Christian theocracy would always be one sect of Christianity's belief structure, imposed upon another set of Christians and non Christians. There was a time once in many parts of western Europe you had to go to church.Obligatory. There was no choice in the matter.More recently in America, there was the Temperance movement. Even more recent is the lifting of the ban on homosexuality and female clergy and bishops.

A fundamentalist Christian Theocracy -literal outward interpretation of the Bible-would resemble a fundamentalist Islamic Theocracy- stoning of adulterers, wearing of beards, banning homosexuality and female clergy. Not to say that there wouldn't be some benefits, like proper adherance to the day of rest and no gossiping - a biblical law even the most pious granny would have difficulty with but would certainly be a good thing :P lol

But on balance, I think you can look to Middle eastern countries to see how human rights, equality and freedom of expression suffer under theocracies and literal outward interpretation of a holy book. Perhaps an example of a theocracy that impacts here is the Catholic Church, where abuses are very hard to root out

If conservative Christians feel they can offer any good to the people here in Northern Ireland-through an outward interpretation of the Bible- perhaps it should be by creating a pan-Irish Christian Church- with a set of common values and beliefs encompassing all shared Christian religious traditions. So that religious interpretation can't be used to denote tribal separation and separate cultural tradition. It's important to emphasize what unites us, rather than arguing over the meaning of words that create division.

We are creatures of habit who like to feel our view of everything should be the dominant one,but the best we can practicaly hope for is that society allows everyone to hold their own private or semi-collective interpretation of belief or non-belief freely. Ironically the only way to offer that to everyone is by living in a secular humanist society and championing peoples human rights to lead lives that respect themselves and others

@Natman (88)

That doesn't really add anything to the argument. Both LSV and I are fairly convinced that Romans is true; the question is therefore how do we interpret it. I doubt that either of us is terribly interested in dancing round the mulberry bush with you on the subject of whether Romans is right or not.

@Ryan_ (89)

'Try and see my replies as musings,not alarmist reaction.'

I'll try.

'Christianity when channelled healthily is a force for good and a force for progress.'

I'm not sure there's much meaning the statement. Isn't it equivalent to saying that healthy things are good? You could replace Christianity with just about anything it would mean the same.

'By claiming it's the literal word of God- not in any way teinted by human translation- you would have to adhere to all of it, not a mish mash of ideas.'

Yes. That's a fairly basic doctrine of orthodox Christianity - 'all Scripture is God breathed and useful for...' etc.

'Interestingly, in this book- The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible https://www.ajjacobs.com/books/yolb.asp - he describes that even fundamentalist Christians pick and choose what they find relevant.'

I'm familiar with the guy. What he does doesn't tell you anything about what other people do. I'm also somewhat wary of the word 'fundamnetalist' as it's a rather loaded term that I'm not sure really describes very many Christians. Speaking as someone from within the Reformed tradition, I interpret the Bible on its own terms. Whatever is written as poety, I read as poetry; whatever is written as history, I read as history; whatever is written as prophecy, I read as prophecy, etc. This whole 'literally' thing is a bit of a red herring at times. If by literal you mean read anything written in the historical narrative genre as real history, then yes, I read literally. If by literally you mean that I read poetry as literal, rather than figurative, then no, I don't read literally.

Regarding the relevance of any given part of the Bible, it's a terrible mistake to take a passage in isolation, without considering the context of who it is written about, who it is written for, how it is interpreted elsewhere, etc. Those are responsible, faithful questions to ask which do justice to the meaning of the text.

'We live in a secular society that allows people their religious freedoms, this is how it should be. A Christian theocracy would always be one sect of Christianity's belief structure, imposed upon another set of Christians and non Christians.'

Okay. But who's asking for a Christian theocracy? I think I'm on record as saying that I don't want one.

'More recently in America, there was the Temperance movement. Even more recent is the lifting of the ban on homosexuality and female clergy and bishops.'

So are you arguing that there is no place for morality in law, that a Christian voice is not welcome in a democracy, or something else entirely?

If the first, then that's a nonsense, because laws always say something about morality. There is no such thing as morally neutral law. The question isn't 'shall we legislate morality,' but rather 'how shall we legislate morality.'

If the second, then agains that's a nonsense. In a democracy, everyone brings views to the table that are guided by their worldview. There is no such thing as a neutral worldview (or any reason to think that such a worldview would be superior to any other). A Christian voicing views on morality and legislation is not doing anything different to a secular humanist who voices views on morality and legislation. Why should one be excluded from the democratic process and not the other?

'A fundamentalist Christian Theocracy -literal outward interpretation of the Bible-would resemble a fundamentalist Islamic Theocracy'

Setting aside for a moment the issue of whether that is true or not, what does it have to do with anything in this discuss thread? Has anyone advocated the establishment of a fundamentalist Christian Theocracy? Has anyone (other than you) even raised the issue of how Christians deal with government and politics?

'But on balance, I think you can look to Middle eastern countries to see how human rights, equality and freedom of expression suffer under theocracies and literal outward interpretation of a holy book.'

You can't take one example (or even several examples) and extrapolate a universal principle from that.

'Perhaps an example of a theocracy that impacts here is the Catholic Church, where abuses are very hard to root out'

The Catholic church can't be a theocracy since it isn't a government (except perhaps in Vatican City - I haven't really thought about that). It explicitly distinguishes between civil and ecclesiastical courts and magistrates.

'If conservative Christians feel they can offer any good to the people here in Northern Ireland-through an outward interpretation of the Bible- perhaps it should be by creating a pan-Irish Christian Church- with a set of common values and beliefs encompassing all shared Christian religious traditions'

Why? I'd prefer to base efforts to do good on the truth, rather than a convenient fantasy.

'It's important to emphasize what unites us, rather than arguing over the meaning of words that create division.'

Why? Sometimes that might be true, but it's not a universal principle. Sometimes differences matter. Should vegetarians have united with Hitler on the basis of their common vegetarianism, rather than arguing over the divisions that I'm sure many vegetarians had with him?

All you've done is utter a platitude. Doesn't truth make a better foundation upon which to build good things, be it an individual life, or the healing of a society?

'Ironically the only way to offer that to everyone is by living in a secular humanist society'

Why?

'championing peoples human rights to lead lives that respect themselves and others'

Once again, who is suggesting that we shouldn't do that?

Simply put- If everybody believed, like you, the Bible to be literally true and sanctioned life accordingly as an outward expression of it - the Christian religious world wouldn't be that dissimilar to the Islamic religious world. Let's say what's religiously & morally right for a conservative Christian was represented as the default in a legislative capacity, and let's say they don't believe homosexuality or female clergy have moral legitimacy. This would mean perfectly decent, productive human beings capable of love and happiness could be sacrificed by a law creating body which held a set of beliefs that can't be argued against, which in essense is the stumbling block here- Conservative Christians will say some bloke 2,000-4,000 yrs ago says God says so and to question it is potential blasphemy or heresy. The effect being,a human being has the right to enslave anothers soul to their narrow world and spiritual view, because they self appoint as custodians of God's will?
Temperance is another issue- it wasn't workable,you impose a moral highground and you just drive people underground. It created a black market, additional violence and death and made the mafia and other gangs rich.

To an outsider looking in, Christianity is an absolute mess. No wonder many people are switched off from it. Why are there so many sects that believe only their sect is the *chosen* one. There isn't even room for negotiation. Your're either in or you're damned. There are those who believe in the literal interpretation that emphasise only certain aspects to be taken literally- clearly those aspects that speak to them on a personal level.
And culturally it's perfectly acceptable to have a Christian framework and see the good side- as in the loving, supportive ,kind side of religion making things a bit better-as it should, without knowing a word of the Bible
Anybody here should know that emphasising common gound is a good thing- otherwise it can lead to segregation. Which as you're aware, hasn't really done Norn Iron any favours. If you can't even get to common ground with a common religion with Jesus as its figurehead then there's not much hope for the people finding a way out of the mire with religion. A secular society works because you can believe what you want and what you believe doesn't effect any one else. You live your life to your belief system independent of wider society reflecting your exact ideals

Jonathan,

You might not be concerned with the validity of Romans (or any of the bible), but pointing out the slight differences in interpretation of a book that might not be true seems to be dodging bigger questions of the validity of the bible as a whole.

Carry on, please do, but would both your efforts not be better directed on convincing others of the base validity of your dogma instead of quibbling amongst yourselves?

@Natman (93)

'You might not be concerned with the validity of Romans (or any of the bible)'

As I said previously, we're convinced that it is valid. That is an entirely different matter to being indifferent to the subject.

'but pointing out the slight differences in interpretation of a book'

They're significant, not slight.

'seems to be dodging bigger questions of the validity of the bible as a whole.'

LSV and I agree on that question, so how is it dodging? As for not engaging with you on the issue, you're not the centre of the universe and not every discussion has to address atheist viewpoints.

'Carry on, please do, but would both your efforts not be better directed on convincing others of the base validity of your dogma instead of quibbling amongst yourselves?'

'Wouldn't you be better helping starving children in Africa, rather than wasting your time on a blog?' - that's pretty much the kind of argument you're presenting.

Try again when you have something meaningful to contribute beyond 'prove to be that Romans is real.'

@Ryan_ (92)

'Simply put- If everybody believed, like you, the Bible to be literally true and sanctioned life accordingly as an outward expression of it - the Christian religious world wouldn't be that dissimilar to the Islamic religious world.'

You keep repeating that mantra, but it doesn't make it any more true. I've asked you what you mean by literally and clearly outlined where I stand on the issue. Similarly, I've questioned your linking of what I say with politics and government enforcing Christian beliefs, but this addresses none of that.

'Let's say what's religiously & morally right for a conservative Christian was represented as the default in a legislative capacity'

Why? You said 'If everybody believed, like you,' yet I haven't advocated such a position, so what does this have to do with what I believe?

'This would mean perfectly decent, productive human beings capable of love and happiness could be sacrificed'

In what way sacrificed?

'The effect being,a human being has the right to enslave anothers soul to their narrow world and spiritual view, because they self appoint as custodians of God's will?'

Once again Ryan_, who is suggesting that anyone should be enslaved? It's a fairly massive strawman that you're attacking with such gusto.

'Temperance is another issue'

Your issue, not mine. For the record, I enjoy the occasional drink.

'Why are there so many sects that believe only their sect is the *chosen* one.'

What do you mean by the *chosen* one?

'Your're either in or you're damned.'

That's a fairly mainstream orthodox beleive about Christianity, not about any particular denomination.

'There are those who believe in the literal interpretation that emphasise only certain aspects to be taken literally- clearly those aspects that speak to them on a personal level.'

I've responded to this - would you care to reply to my responses, rather than repeating a mantra?

'And culturally it's perfectly acceptable to have a Christian framework and see the good side- as in the loving, supportive ,kind side of religion making things a bit better-as it should, without knowing a word of the Bible'

If you don't know the Bible, then it's not a Christian framework. And who cares if it's culturally acceptable? In some tribes it is culturally acceptable to eat people.

'Anybody here should know that emphasising common gound is a good thing- otherwise it can lead to segregation.'

An appeal to the masses is not a logical argument.

'If you can't even get to common ground with a common religion with Jesus as its figurehead then there's not much hope for the people finding a way out of the mire with religion.'

'A secular society works because you can believe what you want and what you believe doesn't effect any one else.'

Well that's just nonsense. Belief affects the way you live so of course it affects others.

Ryan, I don't think you're engaging with any of the issues here. You've got a viewpoint, but it comes across that you're only really interested in re-iterating it, not in critically examining it, while at the same time trying to take apart Christianity (without understanding it).

I don't think you're engaging with any of the issues either. I think you should take a dispassionate step back and examine why you don't think a secular society offers a larger range of people the freedom of belief without being compromised by anyone else's personal belief system.

If something isn't secular what is it? What would Turkey be if it decided not to be secular? How would your freedoms in a religious context be violated if you lived somewhere the majority population were on a different religious path from you and decided not to be secular. How does not living in a secular society in Iraq or other middle eastern countries which aren't secular affect those who aren't of the majority religion, like Christian, Jew, Parsee.
How exactly were Jews treated in Europe under less secular arrangements?

Interestingly,on another note the Victorians- who were much more religiously observant-in real terms,had no difficulty with Darwin who was an Atheist. In fact the establishment gave him a state funeral at Westminster, only the 5th person to be awarded that honour.
The Church of England at the time also encouraged the Bible to be read & seen in a metaphorical light and were able to absorb Darwin's theory on evolution. They had no qualms about grasping the idea of evolution as God's plan. Something creationists still can't get their heads around


I'm afraid I really can't relate to this as a response:

'Anybody here should know that emphasising common gound is a good thing- otherwise it can lead to segregation.'

Reply
"An appeal to the masses is not a logical argument."

If you haven't the empathy to understand we're all in this together and that consciously separating yourself with your personal interpretation of a Book that's supposed to bring freedom from human tyrany, war, hate and human inflicted pain, then you don't deserve to call yourself a Christian. In fact anyone who uses religion to create separateness and who believes only the grouping to which they afiliate themselves are the chosen ones and everyone else is damned are deluded and don't deserve to call themselves religious, because no God would be that cruel to the wonderful living diversity that exists on this planet.
In fact, It would be a sort of purgatory to find yourself with only your small percentage *elite* with no other living entity if that's what an eternal life is. Maybe a retirement village for rich white conservative Christians in Florida is about as close as you're gonna get to that on earth, but I guess pets aren't allowed either after the resurrection, so maybe a Prison, with prisoners of *religious conscience* is the closest arrangement to eternal life by the logic of some Orthodox Christian/Jewish/Islamic traditions

Jonathan (and with reference to Ryan's comments) -

I'm back again to continue our 'quibbling', as one observer has so memorably put it.

This discussion has the potential to go in all sorts of directions (and it probably already is doing so), and so I've given up trying to be too systematic in ploughing through all your responses to my points. So I will make some general comments (trying to stick to Romans, but obviously, since I am someone who, like you, believes the entire Bible to be true - and doesn't feel the need to apologise about that - I have no problem interpreting Romans in the light of other passages of Scripture. So I may dart around the Bible a bit).

If I had to sum up with one word my major concern about the subject of salvation and condemnation, it is the word 'accountability'. I simply cannot comprehend how anyone can believe that God condemns a person who is not properly accountable (which, of course, means that that person has the ability and opportunity to do what is right). This is why I reject the idea of 'inherited guilt' - the concept of judgment as a direct result of the sin of Adam. While I accept that there may be some kind of influence which may be termed 'original sin', I cannot accept that anyone can be judged (in even the smallest degree) for that 'sin', and indeed for any sin that is the direct and unavoidable consequence of 'original sin'. Indeed there is a whole chapter of the Bible devoted to refuting the notion of God's judgment on original sin: Ezekiel 18, which finishes with the wonderful affirmation of God's desire for all people to be saved: "For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies," says the Lord God. "Therefore turn and live!" (v.32). This verse disproves the predestinarian concept of reprobation.

The doctrine of 'total depravity' is used by infralapsarian Calvinists as the justification for the condemnation of the reprobate, with God having simply "passed them by". Of course, this is supralapsarianism by another name, since it uses clever language to attempt to secure the 'justice' of God. It does no such thing, however, since the reprobate are, in reality, doomed from the moment of their conception ('infralapsarianism' is merely a matter of perception, and nothing more). Whatever they do, they will be damned, since it is impossible for them - thanks to the influence of original sin - to avoid committing any sin, and, of course, the moment they commit even the smallest and unintentional of sins, that justifies God's condemnation of them. This then poses the question: why did God create such people in the first place? If God can save some by a fiat of authority then why not simply save all by a fiat of authority? To which the highly unsatisfactory answer often is: who are we to question God? (The sovereigny of God is appealed to as a way of avoiding moral and theological difficulties, even though it appears to be supported by Paul's approach in Romans 9).

Romans 9:18-24: Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honour and another for dishonour? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

This passage seems to be pretty clear about the fact that we must not question God. However, this has to be understood, not only in the context of Romans 9, but the whole argument in Romans, and indeed in the context of the whole revelation of the character and will of God in the Bible.

Anyone can try to force their pet theology on other people, and attempt to hide behind the sentiment apparently expressed in Romans 9: "How dare you question this! If you do, you are impudently questioning God." Such a methodology is ideal for the cynical manipulators of this world, of which there seem to be many within the Christian Church. If I want you to believe that 2+2=5, and you object, I could say: "Well you have to believe this because 'God says so'!" (Of course, we know he doesn't say this, but I am using this as an example of an attempt to misuse the authority of God to promote illogical views). This is an abuse of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God.

How about this passage from Isaiah as a counterweight to the idea expressed in Romans 9?:

Isaiah 5:1-4: Now let me sing to my Well-beloved a song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard on a very fruitful hill. He dug it up and cleared out its stones, and planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, and also made a winepress in it; so He expected it to bring forth good grapes, but it brought forth wild grapes.

"And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge, please, between me and my vineyard. What more could have been done to my vineyard that I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, did it bring forth wild grapes?..."

In this passage God invites the people of Jerusalem and Judah (and, by extension, the reader of the Bible) to judge him; to ascertain whether God actually has the moral justification to condemn his vineyard, for having brought forth wild grapes rather than the expected good grapes. The passage goes on to talk about God's judgment on the vineyard. God is actually submitting his judgment to the assessment of man, which indicates that the concept of accountability (which the human mind well understands) reflects the nature of God's judgment.

God asks a question of man: "What more could have been done to my vineyard that I have not done in it? Why then when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, did it bring forth wild grapes?"

God's will was that the vineyard should bring forth good fruit, and he did all he could to enable that to happen. But the 'vineyard' (representing the 'house of Israel', as it says in v. 7) chose to resist the grace of God and bring forth wild or bad grapes. This is a complete contradiction of the idea of predestination. If the word 'predestination' describes God's activity, then God 'predestined' the vineyard to bring forth good grapes. But it brought forth wild grapes! The predestinarian would then have to say that God planned for the vineyard to 'rebel'. But clearly God did no such thing.

Here we see a complete vindication of the justice of God, the rightness of which can be understood by man. There is no sense here of some kind of mysterious notion of justice, which is beyond human comprehension, and which we are not permitted to question. God invites us here to question (i.e. understand and appreciate) his justice!

So either we have a contradiction in the Bible, or there is some way of explaining the different approaches of Isaiah 5 and Romans 9.

Do we interpret Romans 9 in the light of Isaiah 5, or vice versa? Who is to say that one approach is more justifiable than the other?

Proverbs 4:7 states: "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom. And in all your getting, get understanding."

This is a clear command: we are supposed to understand the Bible. And what is understanding, if it is not a process of overcoming contradiction? The acceptance of contradiction is the antithesis of 'understanding'. And therefore it is completely wrong to appeal to the sovereignty of God as a way of justifying the acceptance of contradictory or 'mysterious' ideas, such as the 'justice' of the decree of reprobation.

Now my approach to the apparent contradiction between Isaiah 5 and Romans 9 is to come to an understanding of the nature of 'election'. Does the concept of 'election' in Romans 9 concern the salvation of individuals? I think not.

Romans 9:13: As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

This is used as justification for the idea that God 'has it in' for certain people, who are termed 'the reprobate'. But did God actually hate Esau in this sense? When we look at the life of Esau we see that this is not the case. Read the moving account of Jacob and Esau's reconciliation in Genesis 33: "But Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept." (v.4). Jacob (the man whom God 'loved') even said to Esau: "...I have seen your face as though I had seen the face of God, and you were pleased with me." (v. 10). It would take a very strange person indeed to view Esau as some kind of evil, depraved, reprobate person eternally hated and rejected by God, when reading this passage! It is patently obvious that the hand of the God of love was behind the reconciliation of Jacob and Esau. Hardly a God who hates Esau eternally!!

So it is clear that Romans 9:13 is not talking about God's eternal attitude towards Jacob and Esau as individuals, but rather it is to do with something more specific concerning the nature of the election of Israel as a nation. Esau was the firstborn, and therefore he had the legal right to the 'blessing', yet God overruled his legal right and chose the younger brother instead. This drama of the blessing of Jacob speaks of God's grace as the basis of election, rather then legal entitlement. And then, even those who reject the grace of God (such as Pharaoh) can be used by God for his purposes (see Romans 9:17).

I acknowledge that some of the wording of Romans 9 seems to support a predestinarian view (even a supralapsarian view). But if we base our doctrine on the emotional impression of certain words, then we have to be consistent. Thus 1 Timothy 2:4 has to be treated in the same way: "God desires all men (people) to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." Period. It does not say "all kinds of people" (that is eisegesis), it emphatically says all people (what else can that mean but 'everybody'?!). Therefore, from this verse we know that God does not deliberately create some people to be damned or "passed over". If he does, then we have to accept that there is a serious and irreconcilable contradiction in the Bible, and even in the writings of the Apostle Paul - a contradiction that strikes at the very heart of the nature of God.

I don't believe that there is a contradiction here at all. The language of Romans 9 does not exclude the operation of human responsibility and free-will concerning salvation.

Finally, concerning 'election': Israel was chosen to be a blessing to all nations (Genesis 12:3). Israel was not chosen in order for the Gentiles to be condemned! Israel was chosen in order to be a blessing to the 'non chosen'. So election has a positive and inclusive meaning in the Bible, but sadly (and it makes me extremely angry, to be honest) throughout history those who see themselves as 'the elect' imagine that their 'election' implies that those who are 'non elect' are therefore 'reprobate'. Election is a calling to positive service and witness; it is not a medal, or "you've survived the vote on X Factor, with the obvious implication that the others have to go home".

I think that there is a much more 'inclusivist' interpretation of the Bible, if we dig a bit deeper, and I can see that this is the issue that seems to concern Ryan on this thread. I can sympathise with what he is saying. I did not become a Christian in order to exclude anyone. If my Christianity somehow implies that non-Christians are, by definition, damned or excluded, then I am not sure that I have a great interest in this religion. In fact, I don't think much of 'religion' actually, and much of it has very little to do with God anyway, as the Gospels make abundantly clear.

I am not in the business of upholding or promoting an 'exclusivistic' religious system. I think true Christianity is a bit more profound than that.

Jonathan, have you gone on hols?

You chased me up in this debate, so (returning the compliment) just wondering whether you're calling it a day with this, or is there still something more to come from you?

No hurry, but I was rather enjoying this thread. Makes a change from trying to get through to the "we refuse to answer a simple question about empiricism" brigade.

LSV,

Perhaps he's sick of trying to answer a question that has no real meaning to the debate.

You've never really answered why, if all empiricism is flawed, a materialistic based scienctific viewpoint can still churn out vastly more 'flawed' evidence than a supernatural one.

Natman -

"You've never really answered why, if all empiricism is flawed, a materialistic based scienctific viewpoint can still churn out vastly more 'flawed' evidence than a supernatural one."

The trouble is, Natman, that I can't be expected to defend a position I don't believe in. Since I have never said that "all empiricism is flawed", and since I don't believe that "all empiricism is flawed", then why are you expecting me to post something based on that assumption? Clearly you have not understood at all the point I was making.

What I have been saying is that the view that "all knowledge derives from sense perception" is flawed. What is it about the word 'all' here that you don't understand? I have never suggested that we cannot derive any knowledge from sense perception. That would be absurd. Of course, the empirical scientific method is valid, but it is not valid for all knowledge. It is brilliant for explaining some things, but not everything. Goodness me! Is this argument really so difficult for you to grasp?

You seem to think that science can only have validity if it explains everything. In other words, you hold to a 'scientistic' philosophy, which is a form of 'faith', in essence no different from any kind of religious faith.

Science is fantastic. It is also limited. Try getting used to that simple and obvious fact.

"...a question that has no real meaning to the debate."

What question are you referring to and what debate? And if it is the empiricism question, then what has that got to do with my discussion with Jonathan?

If it is the empiricism question, then I look foward to reading your explanation as to why the subject of epistemology has no meaning. Because if that subject has no meaning, then all you have written cannot have any meaning, since everything we assert relies on a belief in the nature and validity of knowledge itself. Epistemology concerns the reality closest to all of us: our thoughts. It is far more relevant even than the study of matter, since we cannot even perceive matter without first thinking!