Well…I catch myself feeling alienated from God due to my behaviors from time to time (several times a day?). I then proceed with some soul searching about my actions/thoughts until I come to a resolution of the feelings of alienation from God. The soul searching itself is a way of restoring relationship to God by committing to trying to live in a way that is pleasing to Him.
Is there some underlying point you are trying to make?
The judgment of God is His business. BUT, there are a few things that I “know” in faith from the scripture:
Those who are written in the book of life at the coming of Christ will get to go straight into the kingdom of heaven (“kingdom of heaven” up to a little interpretation).
Those who do go straight into the kingdom will still go through a judgment process.
Those not written in the book of life at the coming of Christ will not be allowed in the kingdom initially (see sheep/goats parable perhaps).
It appears that a name can be stricken from the book of life during this life. Revelation 3:5 seems to indicate so.
BUT, constantly worrying about #4 is pointless. A] As long as a person generally lives a life of faith in Christ, I think they have a decent if not good chance of having their name written in that book of life. B] All will eventually be brought into the kingdom. Jesus condemned worry. It is dumb to worry about whether you will be brought directly into the kingdom. It is wise to trust that God will be ultimately good to all of His creation. Any pain in judgment at the beginning of the afterlife will result in good of some form later in the afterlife. Then again, we should concern ourselves with our salvation to a point. “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”
How “unreconciled” would a person have to be to have their name stricken from the book of life? That’s God’s business. I’d assume that He would weight more than “millions of thoughts per second” regarding all kinds of factors in order to come to a judgment on a person.
I doubt that He seemingly arbitrarily adds and removes names from the book hastily.
Yes - if you understand “alienation” from God similarly to the way I understand it.
My understanding of “alienation” from God:
God’s main goal in existence: provide an overall enjoyable existence to as many of His creatures as possible at each moment in time; the proportion of creatures who are experiencing enjoyment at any given moment should increase, perhaps stochastically, as time passes.
If my actions or thoughts are leading more towards God’s main goal than against God’s main goal, then I could be considered to be “in fellowship” with God.
If my actions or thoughts are leading more away from God’s main goal than towards God’s main goal, then I could be considered to be “alienated” from God.
The above concept requires only “over 50%” of one’s recent thoughts/actions to be in alignment with God’s goals - in order to be “in fellowship” with Him.
As one grows in the faith, the definition of “in fellowship” with God might shift towards 100% of a person’s recent thoughts and actions being in line with God’s goals.
I am ‘ever a wrongdoer’ as St Paul himself admitted. I am a sinner saved by grace.
Reconciliation is an element of salvation. When you state that the whole of humanity is reconciled, the ‘CLEAR inference’ is that the whole of humanity has already been saved. You seem to want to pick an argument with Dave for no reason.
Salvation is threefold: spirit, soul and body (or spirit, mind and body to be clear).
When I repented, my spirit was saved and my future is secure with the downpayment of the Holy Spirit enlivening and uniting with mine.
My mind is in the process of BEING saved and on that level I can still alienate myself from reconciliation (having the mind of Christ).
My body has yet to be saved/redeemed.
This does not negate the fact that ‘by their fruit ye shall know them’ and to suggest that those who were guilty of the holocaust were, at that moment in time in harmony (reconciled) to/with the mind of Christ is sheer nonsense. It is either the most bleak and desperate view of what ‘reconciliation’ means or the most bleak and desperate view of the character of God.
In addition it makes a mockery of all the suffering endured on earth as it has no purpose/value and it is made to be irredeemable.
That is nothing but knitting with blancmange — total jumbled nonsense. According to your logic… a wrongdoer (by your example, holocaust perpetrators) cannot be in a reconciled state with God YET you openly admit you’re a wrongdoer; can’t you see where that loopy logic lands you?
If “reconciliation is an element of salvation” then that precludes reconciliation being the whole of salvation, thus making your ‘CLEAR inference’ charge “that the whole of humanity has already been saved” as clear as mud.
From the pantelist position you have the cart before the horse, i.e., salvation is in fact an element of reconciliation. All, as Paul says, have been reconciled BY God to Himself — that was His unilateral work in Christ ON BEHALF OF His creation — it IS finished!
BECAUSE God has done it all IN TERMS OF establishing the reconciliation in drawing humanity to Himself individually one can come to find salvation; which is the nub of what Paul goes onto say and means by his imploration… “be ye therefore reconciled!” Here is an example of that very thing where Paul gives this distinction between God’s established reconciliation AND THEN the salvation aka eternal life faith releases one into…
Rom 5:10 For if WHEN we were enemies we WERE reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, HAVING BEEN reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Thus Christ’s death (crucifixion) wrought reconciliation for all, period; However… for those exercising faith Christ’s life (resurrection) wrought salvation, i.e., eternal life to those grasping it, that is, actively receiving it, cf vs. 11b. So… salvation is about purpose NOT position it is about service to God in this life and NOT about getting to heaven in the next.
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:13 ESV)
This suggests that everyone who does not call on the name of the Lord will not be saved.
I realize that this does not follow logically from the statement.Yet it is suggested.
The logical equivalent of the statement in Romans 10:13 is “Everyone who will not be saved, does not call on the name of the Lord.”
Does grace, forgiveness, faith, and repentance - depend on a particular church structure? Or do they work independently, of the church structure of setting? In other words, can I experience these elements if I attend:
A Pentecostal church?
A Roman Catholic church
An Eastern Orthodox Church?
Or hypothetically, a Native American Church. Where they blend Christianity, Native American Spirituality and Peyotism.
And I might join them hypothetically, for singing Christian songs - like this one?
Short answer… absolutely NO.
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:13 ESV)
Yes, and that means calling on the name of the Lord is a sufficient condition of being saved. That is, a person cannot call on the name of the Lord without also being saved.
This suggests that everyone who does not call on the name of the Lord will not be saved.
I realize that this does not follow logically from the statement.Yet it is suggested.
Yes, it does not follow logically. It would follow logically if calling on the name of the Lord were a necessary condition of being saved. If calling on the name of the Lord were a necessary condition of being saved, then it would follow that a person will not be saved without also calling on the name of the Lord. But Romans 10:13 says nothing about calling on the name of the Lord being a necessary condition of being saved. Given that calling on the Lord is not a necessary condition of being saved, one would conclude that a person would be saved not only by calling on the name of the Lord, but also by some other way or ways.
The logical equivalent of the statement in Romans 10:13 is “Everyone who will not be saved, does not call on the name of the Lord.”
Yes, that is true, again because calling on the name of the Lord is a sufficient condition of being saved. If it is true that a person will be saved if that person calls on the name of the Lord, then it follows that if a person will not be saved, that person has not called on the name of the Lord.
Thus, Romans 10:13 supports the claim that calling on the name of the Lord is a sufficient condition of being saved, but it says nothing about its being a necessary condition of being saved.
A question I have for you is what does call on the name of the Lord mean? Would confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord be calling on the name of the Lord? If the answer is affirmative, then it would follow that Romans 10:13 means that everyone will be saved because everyone will confess that Jesus is Lord, according to Philippians 2:10-11. It would also follow that this syllogism would be valid and its premises would be true.
Premise 1: Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Romans 10:13)
Premise 2: Everyone will call on the name of the Lord. (Philippians 2:10-11)
Conclusion: Everyone will be saved.
Here’s the got Questions take:
Though I agree that God will work with every individual until he submits, even if that takes thousands of years, the passage in Philippians does not teach that every knee shall bow.
9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This passage teaches that God exalted His Son and bestowed on Him the highest name in order that every knee should bow (or in order that every knee would bow if you are more familiar with the grammar in using “would” instead of “should”).
But there is no prediction in this text, that every knee will bow, although it is true.
Re the question of “shall”, “should”, “will”, “would”, Greek subjunctives, etc.
I am no Greek or Hebrew scholar so can only give an unlearned opinion on what was the intention of Paul in writing the two texts in Romans and Philippians.
It would seem to me that Paul is quoting from Isaiah 45:23. The NKJV translates that verse as follows:
“I have sworn by Myself;
The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness,
And shall not return,
That to Me every knee shall bow,
Every tongue shall take an oath.”
I may be wrong, but I don’t think that Paul’s original manuscripts of his letters to the Romans and the Philippians probably remain extant. I don’t know if Isaiah’s is either. Nor do I know how many times his writings were transcribed by a procession of copyists, subjecting them to potential error.
I am quite content to believe that Paul intended his readers to understand his words the same way as Isaiah intended his words to be understood several centuries earlier.
This relevant discussion, quoted below, disagrees with your view.
"The Greek root word that is translated as ‘bow’ in Philippians 2:10 is ‘kampto.’ The word is an aorist active subjunctive verb. Here is the verse.
’For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.’ (NASB) Philippians 2:9-11
The English phrase ‘will confess’ is also an aorist middle subjunctive. The aorist refers to an event that occurs at some point in time. The Greek subjunctive typically expresses uncertainty about the action. But in this case, the Greek passage starts with ‘hina.’ When ‘hina’ is combined with a subjunctive verb, we have a purpose clause (‘in order that’) and the purpose is realized.
The meaning of the passage is governed by ‘hina’ and the subjunctive. God’s purpose is that every knee will bow to Jesus and every tongue will confess Him as Lord. And the purpose will be realized. There is not a maybe here."
Thus, in this view, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, as translated in the NASB version of the Bible. Premise 2 appears to be correct as stated.
Regarding the first question–I proposed the syllogism below because it seems a reasonable extension from the verses cited.
Premise 1: Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Romans 10:13)
Premise 2: Everyone will call on the name of the Lord. (Philippians 2:10-11)
Conclusion: Everyone will be saved.
And this syllogism proposes that confession–through confessing that Jesus is Lord, which calls on the name of the Lord–is sufficient for salvation.
Regarding the second question–I think works are somehow involved, as shown by the parable of the sheep and goats, a parable in which nothing but works is cited by Jesus as separating sheep and goats. The claim that these works addressed in the parable are necessary signs of calling on the name of the Lord, and thus could very well be signs of faith, seems reasonable to me, however.
Regarding the third question–I suggest that the simple answer is the best for now: salvation is being saved.
I have to say, Dave that the pantelist view is like refreshing water to my raging thirst. Some of us have spent our lives trying to make peace with a monster, trying to live right, trying to be sure our faith is real, trying to find out why it’s called “good news.”
I’m very glad that you find some peace of mind in the good news!!
But Andre - the good news has been there all along! It doesn’t take a far-fetched eschatology (imho), just mere Christianity, to show that God has never been like some dour Christians have portrayed it.
Yes, but that “far-fetched eschatology” certainly has a lot of explanatory power, which answers a plethora of verses and subsequent theology that has caused so much mental torment over the millennia. For a more comprehensive explanation of this, see http://www.erictb.info/pantelism.html
Hey if you’re happy with it, that’s great!
I would also add that this entire debate has a monkey-wrench thrown into it: babies and young children who die. Those who are adamant that humans must exercise their wills and turn in repentance and faith must explain why those who die in infancy seem to be allowed to bypass the need to exercise their “free will.” Unless you think that there are babies a span long crawling on the floor of hell.