quote:

---

What I am wondering is if Scripture teaches us that accountability for our sin stems from our knowledge of it. Is ignorance an excuse before God? At first glance, this would seem to solve at least some of our problem with post-mortem punishment. Perhaps God will only condemn those who (1) at some point become aware of the truth, and (2) affirmatively reject it.

---

I think your question is nuanced slightly differently from the other thread and worth looking at independently.

I think there is good reason to believe this to be the case. (of course whether punishment for rejecting the truth is eternal or not is another question! ) Aside from all the Universalist passages and philosophical under-pinnings, it seems only just that people would need to be presented with the full depth of truth and then be given the choice of accepting or rejecting it in an ULTIMATE way. I believe Doc supports this stance.

Questions that arise from your question regarding salvation:

Is is enough to simply believe you need a Saviour?

Is it enough to acknowledge your sin and repent?

Is is enough to desire righteousness?

Is it enough to embrace a compassionate symbol of grace?

My response is "yes." God looks on our "hearts." I think, as I said in the other thread you started, it is a hangover from the Enlightenment to assume people must adhere to a particular belief system or doctrine in order to be 'saved.'

Peace,
~E

quote:

---

My response is "yes." God looks on our "hearts." I think, as I said in the other thread you started, it is a hangover from the Enlightenment to assume people must adhere to a particular belief system or doctrine in order to be 'saved.'

Peace,
~E

---

quote:

---

Could you provide an example of a "particular belief or doctrine" that you had in mind when you responded?

---

I'm actually speaking of all the beliefs or doctrines Christians generally use as a test to determine whether a person is "saved" or not. These will include beliefs about the nature of the atonement, Christ's human and Divine natures, the Trinity, etc. While I believe these doctrines to be true, I do not believe these are prerequisite understandings people must hold before death in order to be "saved." In that sense, a person who has never heard of Jesus or the Trinity who's heart simply desires truth, salvation, etc. is "saved" in the eyes of God. (of course my definition of "saved" is likely different from everyone else's on this board...but that's another topic!)

Peace,
~E

quote:

---

a person who has never heard of Jesus or the Trinity who's heart simply desires truth, salvation, etc. is "saved" in the eyes of God.

---

quote:

---

If I inform a person of the truth of the Gospel I have placed them at risk of eternal damnation should they choose to reject it. If i had said nothing then they would have remained innocent. Therefore, if I truly care for humanity I should do everything I can to hide them from the Gospel. I should in fact begin a campaign telling the world, "If anyone tries to tell you about the Bible or about Christ run for your lives, cover your ears and do not listen."

But then I would find myself in a position of direct disobedience to God's command to go and make disciples of all nations. In essence I myself would be rejecting His truth.

---

quote:

---

What if they know and affirmatively reject such doctrines?

---

quote:

---

Rather than asking if one has been "saved" as though it were it were in the past....I would ask, "how are we moving towards reconciliation"? I see "salvation" not as a moment of decision , but as a journey of reconciliation (although a decision begins the journey)...and it is a reconcilation of ourselves to God.... but ALSO to reality, to ourselves, to others, and to creation. The wonderful guarantee we have is that by grace, we are BEING saved...we have been (the cross), are currently, (our present lives) and will be (after death)...it is a past, present, and future event!

---

Well, as a Universalist I affirm that people will reject truth...but it is only a temporary rejection that arises from delusion and sin....eventually they will be awakened to embrace the truth by the grace of God.

But, are "eternality of suffering" and non-"eternal punishment" mutually exclusive?

What if the suffering is self-imposed?

quote:

---

I am curious to know how parallel your beliefs are with good ol pierre's, let me know, mmmkay?

---

Wow woe! You bring up some extremely intriguing points here from Chardin that do correspond to my perspective on salvation...yes! That's quite an amazing connection if you ask me. Nice job bro.

First of all, Chardin's concept of some kind of spiritual evolution makes sense to me completely. I believe we are indeed on a journey of transformation (salvation), and as we move along, we are daily being transformed into the image of Christ. Day by day we come closer to holiness if we move ahead with our eyes fixed on God. I actually believe this continues after death...that we do not "stop" evolving or transforming, we will do so throughout eternity, ever more reflecting the glory of God. I also believe that the closer we come to God, the more truly unique and "ourselves" we will be. We do not one day reach a point of total similarity, rather, all of our gifts and divergent personalities will be enhanced! Like...Bach will continue to compose music and will become greater as a composer throughout eternity with his own original musical creations.

Chardin's idea of original sin (which is a doctrine I'm not sure I fully believe in), also makes much more sense from a continuous perspective rather than as a one time event in history. I think he's on to something here.

From your interest in evolution, what do you think of Chardin's concepts??

You said:

quote:

---

once saved always saved does seem to present a problem for a lot of people

---

I wouldn't necessarily take my perspective on salvation as a journey to mean that once we set out on the journey we have no guarantee that we will, in fact, reach the end (salvation). I believe, as Paul says, the Holy Spirit is our guarantee. However....as you point out, people become complacent with this and we must be careful because even Jesus tells us that not all the seeds fall on good soil. We must, like Paul expressed so well, "Work out our salvation with fear and trembling."

Thanks for this discussion! It's great.

-------------------------

PoW said:

quote:

---

One thing that I've read is that our unconfessed sins will be our accusors. That in the midst of experienceing God's unrelenting Love.

---

Oh...I think I agree with this! It makes sense to me that our sins judge us rather than God judging us. I believe we do stand "condemned" from the perspective of our sin...it is only grace that brings us out of this trap. I just don't think we will stand "accused" forever.

quote:

---

The other thing is that God really is holy, and awsome. Never should that be taken lightly, in any way. Though there are those saints who dared venture that even the deamons might eventually have the possibility of salvation. . . the holiness of God is also terrifying.

---

Again, I totally agree. I don't think most Christians have any concept of the holiness of God and frankly, it has been lost in most of our worship as well. This is why I myself prefer high liturgy in the Orthodox and anglo-catholic traditions...here we see the tangible action of worshipping God as Holy Other. Amen!

What I don't believe, however, is that sin is more powerful than holiness. What I mean by that, is holiness transforms and purifies all that is in us that is not of God...in the same way that soil takes whatever is offered it and turns it back into soil. God's mercy, holiness, and love has a purifying effect on us...it burns away the dross of all our sin (eventually). Like Paul says, many of us escape, but only as one who "escapes through fire."

quote:

---

But, are "eternality of suffering" and non-"eternal punishment" mutually exclusive?

What if the suffering is self-imposed?

---

I think our suffering may be self-imposed in large part, yes. But again, I just don't see how a loving God would allow us to continue in an eternal state of such suffering.

Peace,
Miss E

quote:

---

I think our suffering may be self-imposed in large part, yes. But again, I just don't see how a loving God would allow us to continue in an eternal state of such suffering.

---

This is where the money is! To posit that a loving being would so LAUD freedom as to allow even SELF-CREATED and SELF-SUSTAINED eternal suffering flies in the face of all we know as human beings. If this were the case of how things worked, we'd NEVER forcibly put people in rehab, we'd never try to physically restrain someone who was self-mutilating just because they got off on it. This doesn't sit right with our INTUITIONS. Our intuitions tell us that there are just some levels of suffering, self-inflicted or otherwise, that demand that freedom be RESTRICTED or at least SEVERELY LIMITED for the overall sake of the person inflicting damage. Isn't that what MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (like the one where I work) are partly all about???

And positing annihilationism ain't too much better. Given what we know about the GLORIOUS nature of eternal life with God, a truly loving being (as so thought of here) would truly allow a person's INCOMPLETE, FALLIBLE decision making process to lead them to eternal death? Is that really what we are going to say? Hmmm...

Just some thoughts.

quote:

---

To posit that a loving being would so LAUD freedom as to allow even SELF-CREATED and SELF-SUSTAINED eternal suffering flies in the face of all we know as human beings. If this were the case of how things worked, we'd NEVER forcibly put people in rehab, we'd never try to physically restrain someone who was self-mutilating just because they got off on it. This doesn't sit right with our INTUITIONS. Our intuitions tell us that there are just some levels of suffering, self-inflicted or otherwise, that demand that freedom be RESTRICTED or at least SEVERELY LIMITED for the overall sake of the person inflicting damage. Isn't that what MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (like the one where I work) are partly all about???

---

Oh, my sentiments exactly. This is exactly my point, only expressed more thoroughly and eloquently. I know why Doc loves when you paraphrase and summarize him!

--------------

JG said:

quote:

---

Pros and cons of believing that ignorance is a one-way ticket to heaven:

Pros:

1) We don't have to think that people are unfairly sent to hell against their will.

---

I don't believe ignorance is a one way ticket to heaven. I also believe in hell; I simply don't believe hell is eternal. Universalism doesn't resolve this problem.

quote:

---

Cons:

1) Why evangelize to anyone if we're concerned about the soul going to heaven?

---

I think you answered your own question very well...God's glory is key. Additionally, (I can only play devil's advocate here), we should evangelize because it is commanded of us in the Great Commission.

However, if I believed in traditional evangelism, as a Universalist I would still evangelize out of love for souls...it matters not whether hell is eternal in that sense. I believe love is what ought to motivate us in all that we do because, as Paul says, if we have not love, we have nothing.

Interestingly, I find that Calvinists are the LEAST likely to engage in mission or evangelism because they believe all is predetermined.

quote:

---

2) If this was true, I bet like 98% of heaven would be people who never knew who God was... aborted babies, native indians, the mentally handicapped, etc.

---

Oh yes...but they would know and recognize God the moment they saw him. What a glorious moment!

Peace,
Miss E

quote:

---

Cons:

1) Why evangelize to anyone if we're concerned about the soul going to heaven?

2) If this was true, I bet like 98% of heaven would be people who never knew who God was... aborted babies, native indians, the mentally handicapped, etc.

---

quote:

---

I believe love is what ought to motivate us in all that we do because, as Paul says, if we have not love, we have nothing.

---

quote:

---

I don't believe ignorance is a one way ticket to heaven. I also believe in hell; I simply don't believe hell is eternal. Universalism doesn't resolve this problem.

---

quote:

---

I appreciate the kudos, Miss E. I honestly believe that, too. See, just on a MORAL case, I don't see how anyone could knock your version of universalism. You'd have a view of God where a significant amount of justice was done while preserving the overcoming power of love. If we Christians are going to use the more TRADITIONAL view of omnibenevolence, I just cannot see how we can do so WITHOUT positing at least this version of universalism. It's the only thing that will justify the omnicompetent, infinitely intelligent God creating a universe with the genuine chance for the emergence of such RADICAL evil.

Wouldn't you agree?

---

Yes, I do agree emphatically. Thanks for understanding actually. Somehow, I feel less like an ogre now.

BJS asked:

quote:

---

I must confess that I'm a bit taken aback here. You DON'T believe that those who are ignorant of saving knowledge will be spared from hell (temporary though it may be), and you are still opposed to evangelism?

---

Right, but let me explain. I don't believe ignorance is an excuse for anyone because knowledge is not what saves us (I think this comes dangerously close to Gnostic ideas), rather, it is the state of one's heart that saves or "condemns" us. This is all related to my concept of salvation (reconciliation), whereby God looks upon one's heart, rather than our belief systems. Everyone is accountable for what they do know, therefore no one can fall back on ignorance as an excuse. In other words, ignorance gains you nothing, but it also does not condemn you. (On the other hand, willful ignorance might.)

While I don't believe in traditional evangelism (witnessing with the goal to convert), I do believe in mission and service to others. We can only "change hearts" by acting out of love.

In my understanding, hell serves as a place where restitution is made for wrongs committed rather than as a place one is punished for not knowing the right things or not believing the correct doctrinal system. It also serves as a "middle ground" until people are brought into full reconciliation with God.

I hope that helps clarify.

Peace,
Miss E

To the atheistic formula, "If God exists, then man is not free." The Bible responds, "If man exists, God is no longer free." We are able to say not to God, but God is no longer able to say no to us, for according to St. Paul, "there is only yes in God," (2 Cor 1:19) the yes of his Covenant which Christ has given on the Cross. Then, "I am free" means "God exists." It is God himself who guarantees the freedom of doubt so as to not violate human conscience.

God has created the "second freedom," and he takes the supreme risk of a freedom which is capable of stopping him, of obligating him to descend into death and into hell. He freely allows himself to be assassinated in order to offer pardon and resurrection to the assassins. His omnipotence is to make room for human freedom, to veil his presence in order to be in dialogue with "the other," to love with all infinite patience which waits for the free response, a free creation of a common life of God and his child. A patristic saying states it this way, "God can do everything, except constrain us to love him." The omnipotence of God is to become the life giving Cross, the unique response to this case of atheism on freedom and evil.

"The Kingdom of God has come among you," means that hell has also come among us. Marcel Johandeau puts it in his own way, "On my own, I am able to set up before God an empire in which he can to nothing, and this is hell...if we do not understand hell it is because we do not know our own hearts..." It is the hell of all those who despair and who explore the depths of Satan and cast towards heaven their empty blasphemies.

Now even the despair of hell is wounded by Christ, who as a person has experienced God's silence: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mt 27:46). Here we see the connection of hell with the freedom of loving God. Human freedom can create hell because we are always able to say: "May your will not be done." and not even God can control these words.

The freedom to refuse God is his wish for us, without limits. The suspended power of human choice renders our destiny conditional. And it is hell, therefore, to speak of divine love, the heavenly dimension of hell, the divine vision of humanity immersed in the night of solitude.

it is of the greatest urgency to correct the "terrorist" and "penitentiary" ideas of God. It is no longer possible to believe in a heartless God incapable of suffering. The only message which could reach atheism today is that of Christ descending into hell. As deep as the hell in which today we find ourselves, it is even more profound to find Christ already there waiting for us. God does not ask of us virtue, moralism, blind obedience but a cry of assurance and of love from the depth of our hell. We ought never to fall into despair. We can only fall into God and it is God who never despairs. St. Anthony the Great said that hell surely exists but only for himself, which is to say that hell is never "for the others," that is never the object of our discourse.