The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Justification by Sight Alone?

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

Hey all, as I’m sure that most of you know, the concept of justification by faith alone was one of, if not the most important tenets of the Protestant Reformation. Scripture abounds with the concept of righteousness / faith faith / righteousness. My question is: How does this square up with UR? It seems to me that when a person dies and / or the Day of Judgment faith will no longer be possible, only sight. I know that a former poster named Aaron-extremely bright, soul sleep, nonTrinitarian, preterist, UR-both explicitly and implicitly stated that in the world to come faith would not be a prerequisite. Will you all please explain and / or clarify?

Thanks,

Matt

#2

Jesus doesn’t condemn Thomas for needing to see to believe. Blessed are those who haven’t seen, yes but no curse pronounced on Thomas, or others who need to see. Its like “Jesus is the savior of all people, especially of those who believe”. There is no distinction in that he is the savior of all people. There is an especially for those who believe. IMO that especially is to rule and reign, and to bring in the rest of the fold.

#3

IMO, it also applies to what we see in this world, which will no longer apply after death. “In this world you will have trouble” hey, it even** looks** as if God is losing the redemption battle. This is where the walking in faith comes from because what we see is NOT what we get. Like when Moses could only see the Red Sea in front and the Egyptians behind. Lord God basically said, “Quitcher praying and get the people moving” so Moses began moving them toward the Red Sea before it was even beginning to part. That’s moving by faith and not by sight.

#4

Faith implies trusting in God. When my husband and I were married 10 years ago, I had faith he would not be like the other men. Now that I’ve been with him these nearly 11 years, my faith is so much stronger, but it’s still faith. He could turn around tomorrow and reject me, but I know he won’t. He loves me! Incredible, yet I have to believe it. He has created this faith in me.

Since God is all about relationships, this is how I see our faith in Him. We trust Him to save us, and this is no less trust for having been late in arriving. We MUST come to Him by faith for there is NO OTHER WAY, and it is He who creates this faith in us. Some have a farther journey to traverse than others. Some of us travel far enough to be reconciled to Him in this age; others need more time. And yes, EVERYONE must make this journey, from the babe who never saw the light to the ancient pagan who dies with a broken heart poisoned by hatred. Because of the nature of relationship, exceptions cannot be made. Each, every, all without exception must come to a point of faith in Him in order to be saved from sin and naturalized as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven; adopted as daughters and sons of the Most High. Of Him and through Him and to Him are ALL things (and things includes people). His glory will never be diminished one iota; His beauty will be revealed complete in ALL of His creation. Not one will be lost, for the Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand, and of all the Father has given Him, He will lose none of them, but when He is lifted up, He will draw all people to Himself – and who can resist Him?

Yes, God is truly GOOD – as He has commanded us to be good. There is not one good for God and another good for His people, for we are all being conformed into the image of His Son, who is the precise and exact representation of the Father. My soul overflows with praise for our God, who is surpassing wonderful!

Love, Cindy

#5

Ummm…of the 3 replies, there seems to be 3 different answers :confused:
So, is faith only a prerequisite in this life? Is Thomas an exception?
My understanding is that Scripture can’t be broken…

Matt

#6

Hmmm…I didn’t see any conflict in the three answers. We all just talked about different aspects of it. Throughout the OT and NT man has been saved in one way and one way only. - through Faith. If faith is a hope in that which is not seen, then when our hope is fulfilled and comes to pass there is no longer need for faith. Once we are all ultimately reconciled to God and He is ALL in ALL. We have everything. There is nothing to hope for in the sense that we have all we have hoped for in Christ.

Suppose a person works hard to win the gold medal in the olympics. He has a HOPE that one day they will put the gold medal around his neck. One day it happens. He recieves the medal after winning. A reporter rushes up to him, “Do you hope to win the gold medal some day?” - The gold medalist laughs at the reporter - “hoping is over- reality is hanging around my neck”
In the same way, reality will be in us and we will be in Him. No need for hope when this life is over.

#7

I think I’m agreeing with ded2da here. It does seeme that often Calvinist do seem to ask for a formal logical coherence in saving faith that is not essential (IMHO). I found this link useful in shedding light on this issue -

benwitherington.blogspot.co.uk/2 … s-are.html

#8

The contrast to “faith alone” was “faith and works” but in that day primarily “Works”; it was a statement against righteousness, being acceptable to God, based on how good we are rather than on how good God is! Whether one followed Jesus because they “saw” him or not was not the issue. Paul was an ardent follower of Jesus only after he “saw” the Lord. And in many ways, none of us become followers of Jesus until “the lights come on” and we see Jesus for who He is. We are slaves of unrighteousness until we are set free, dead in our sins until we are given life, in darkness until the light shines on us!

#9

“Justification by faith alone” is a Lutheranism. You don’t find that in the Bible. Indeed, Luther added the word “alone” into his translation of the Bible. When he was challenged on this, he replied, “It MEANS ‘faith alone’ so I translated it that way! Therefore I have a right to add ‘alone’ if I want to!”

James clearly wrote that justification is by works, with faith being active along with works. Interestingly he used the same OT passage as his basis, that Paul used Romans 4:1-5. Commentators go through all sorts of gymnastics to try to prove that there is no contradiction between Paul and James. I haven’t been convinced that they have been successful.

In my opinion, Paul was not writing about justification not being by works per se, but not being by the works of the Mosaic law, whereas James was writing about justification by works of righteousness.

Here are James’ words:

*So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.

Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him into (εις) righteousness” [righteousness being the result of faith]; and he was called the friend of God.

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:17-24)*

Even the word “justification” in today’s Protestant and evangelical world is often misunderstood. Many think it means “being counted righteous” whether you are actually righteous or not. In the New Testament the word frequently means “being rendered righteous”, that is, becoming actually righteous.

#10

In addition we have the plain statement of Jesus:

So, we know that, if we take Jesus at His words, that believing in Him IS a work. What’s more, He also said, “You are My friends if you keep My commandments.”

#11

Right, Cindy.

It is ironic that the same Paul who wrote Romans 3 and 4, the source of Martin Luther’s thesis of “justification by faith alone,” also wrote Romans 2, where his teaching concerning the way to receive eternal life doesn’t mention faith at all:

*For He will render to everyone according to his works.

To those who by perseverance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,
He will give eternal life, but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth,
but are persuaded by unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil, but glory and honour and well-being for
every one who does good… for God shows no partiality. (Romans 2:6-10)*

#12

I don’t think that sight and faith are opposites. Faith simply means to trust someone, to have confidence in, to believe something.

And I would argue that “believing” is the same as having faith. To have faith is to believe.

The word usually translated “believe” is the Greek verb for “trust”: πιστεύω see also: perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pisteu%2Fw&la=greek#lexicon

That word comes from the Greek noun “trust” – which is usually translated “faith”: πίστις see also: perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pistis&la=greek#lexicon

So, one can see and believe, or one can believe without seeing, and either way their belief is “faith.”

Sonia

#13

And all the apostles and disciples had to see to believe to start with, not only Thomas! Peter wondered but didn’t believe until Christ appeared to him (offscreen); the Beloved Disciple believed after seeing the empty tomb and the empty shroud. Mary Magdelene didn’t believe (“They’ve taken his body and we don’t know where!”) until she saw Christ. The other women ran from the angels (or the angel and the young man who didn’t see the angel) saying nothing to anyone despite being instructed to, until they met Jesus during their flight. The apostles regarded the story of the women as “oblivion-gush”! Saul of Tarsus may have been feeling the goads, but didn’t believe until seeing (and being blinded by) Jesus on the Damascus road.

Was their faith dead?–was their faith impossible after seeing? Did Christ not accept them (and their faith)? Isn’t the gift of faith the gift of faith regardless of how God chooses to give it–isn’t that a key tenet of Calvinism?!

#14

And further along those lines, John writes:

Was it only the apostles and first disciples who were allowed to see in order to believe?

Sonia

#15

And that isn’t even counting a ton of scriptural prophecy to the effect that the visible coming and reign of Christ (or YHWH rather in the OT) will result in a massive and (almost) entirely successful evangelism of the world.

Maybe that prophecy can be explained another way, or explained away, but on the face it surely involves the personal evangelization of God as God. (The success might be disputable, if there is a final rebellion of Satan at the end of that millennial reign, but still it isn’t as though Christ rejects those who repent of their sins upon seeing Him at last, and He still makes the call for repentance and loyalty in those prophecies.)

The face value of those prophecies also fits the evangelical rationale to the visible presence of YHWH in the Temple and tabernacle (God tells the Hebrews that He expects them to use the visible presence for evangelizing the nations), and not to put too fine a point on it also fits the whole principle of the Son Incarnate bothering to evangelize anyone at all Himself. :wink: True, He wished that people would accept Him without the flashiness (and complained about that), but He still accepted them in good faith. Which kind of brings us back around to ApostThom. :slight_smile:

Christ even complains to some of His religious opponents in GosJohn that if they can’t bring themselves to believe Him on what He says, at least believe the works He does!

#16

Thank you Cindy.

It looks like you answered a question I’ve been asking myself since last Thursday over two weeks before I started asking it.

#17

Faith isn’t simply choosing to believe in something you can’t see. that CAN be part of it, but the integral part of faith is trust. Christ’s disciples, as pointed out, saw and believed. Abraham didn’t see and believed. what did this belief entail? it wasn’t some woolly vague feeling, it was trust. they and we trust in God’s love, power, wisdom, justice etc…we trust Him because He has shown Himself trustworthy in some way to each of us.

if trust is the core essence of belief, as i feel it is, then it is possible to see AND believe. both are not mutually exclusive. I will therefore continue to trust God when i meet Him face to face. And i believe all that see Him will be changed in a twinkling of an eye, and will see how trustworthy He is, and put their trust (and thus faith) in Him.

there is no contradiction, IMO, between seeing and believing, if we understand trust to be the core essence of faith.

this “contradiction” between faith and seeing/evidence etc is a false one drawn (badly) by the more militant of atheists. we’d do well to avoid that pointless trap.

#18

I’m not clued up on this, but doesn’t NT Wright and the Fresh Approach to Paul offer an alternative reading of Pauline faith/justification that is more to do with Jesus’ faithfulness rather than our belief?

#19

Yes indeed pog… it was “faithfulness” to God’s covenant call of “service” – typically in this life in the here and now. The issue of “faith” was NEVER about ‘getting to heaven’ but about pleasing God [Heb 11:6] and that was demonstrable by one’s actions in service of others i.e., works – which were in turn really a reflection of one’s heart unto God… Mt 25:37-40; Mk 9:41 et al.