Saying something about a group does not mean that other groups are necessarily excluded. For example: “Fifteen-year-olds can come to the picnic.” That sentence ONLY says that 15-year-olds are in. One cannot infer anything about those younger or older than 15.
Nobody in Heaven is without faith. There are no atheists in Heaven! But there are plenty of former atheists in Heaven. There are no sinners in Heaven! But there are plenty of former sinners in Heaven. Basically, the passages are stating, “Before you get to Heaven, you must have faith.” That in no way implies that some will NEVER have faith.
The more I read the OT, the more John 3:16 actually reads to me this:
For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son, that whosoever shall believe in Him should not be lost [living aimlessly, losing sight of what life is about, walking in darkness], but have qualify life [living for a real purpose, living for God, living upright, knowing the Father].
I don’t think Jesus is talking about a future Heaven or Death at all. He is talking about this life. I sometimes wonder if it wasn’t an invention by Satan to have us so worried about the future so that we don’t live in the here and now. We basically obsess over what has not yet happened and are robbed of the present.
As for Acts 2:21, 16:31 and Romans 10:9 being made obsolete by death… One could argue, I suppose that if death (not hell) is the final punishment, then how could they repent after their punishment? Good question, or is it? There is a problem with it. If you believe Revelations, it says that all those who have died will be raised. Therefore, the first death, at least, cannot possibly invalidate these Bible verses, for after the dead are raised, they will have opportunity to call upon the name of the Lord! Savvy?
For every text which may imply universal salvation, there must be many more clearly stating that salvation is conditional. How do we deal with this situation:
Yes conditional on believing but the issue is whether there is a hard deadline (like death) or not. Traditional Christianity has taught that physical death is that deadline but UR believes salvation can occur after death.
So the greek words for “judgment” as in “once to die and then the judgment” are “krinos” and “krisis” and the definitions for these words allow for reconciliation through this judgment. If this is true then salvation after death is possible and most likely happens in or through the lake of fire.
The verses supporting UR may actually be prophetic without being obvious about it.
The way I deal with it is to insist that neither UR or ET or anyone else may cut it out of whole cloth. All scripture must be satisfied in our doctrine.
Salvation IS conditional on believing, and subjection to Christ’s Lordship (Ro 10:8-10)
Eventually all will believe.
“If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me”.
Hey Steve, I really agree with that, especially with regards to Romans 8:18-23,1 Cor 15:22-28, Phil 2:9,10 and Rev 5:13, John 12:32- all prophetic views.
I like the old distinction between ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’ causation.
Is faith ‘necessary’ for salvation? I think it is clearly so.
If faith ‘sufficient’ for salvation? That is not so clear.
-the devils ‘believe’ but are not (yet?) saved
-faith without works is dead
-To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life. Rom 2.7
There are (at least) 2 types of faith. One is the mental assent to a proposition or a set of propositions. Two is the faithful obedience or the obedient faithfulness that comes from an utter trust in a Person. A life-matter, not simply a mental assent, important as that is.
I suppose this title is implying that without faith salvation from sin is impossible.
Yes, faith is necessary, but not sufficient.
Some can become just as proud of their faith as others are of their works.
The bottom line is coöperation with God—synergism:
Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. (2Cor 6:1 ESV)
I’ve been thinking about this A LOT lately, what with my ‘faith’ meltdown. I’m still listening to Peter Hiett’s weekly sermons, and it just so happens that the latest one deals with this topic:
Geoffrey, Gabe, Caleb, Steve, Eaglesway, Cindy and Catherine - thank you all very much for addressing the question I posed in the OP. I appreciate your help so far and if more thoughts come to mind please let me know.
I can’t see how Dave or Paidion actually addressed my concern ( I might just be dumb) but I’m perfectly happy to also have interesting tangential thoughts along the way so thank you too.
In summarising, it seems that we are saying:
Yes, faith is necessary for salvation.
All will be given faith in due course whether that be before or after we shed this mortal coil. Judgement may well include the gift of faith and reconciliation.
Please correct me if I’ve got that wrong.
Catherine, thanks for that message from Peter. I have listened to it twice. I have to admit that I was dozing during the first listening so I tried again. I do like Peter’s approach but I wish, at times, that he was a little more direct. What with, wheelbarrows, fighter pilots, lepers who are or aren’t saved. oxycotone??, Guinness etc it was all very good but in the end, I think he was just saying that faith is a gift from God, He is in control of it and EVENTUALLY He will give it to everyone. I was left feeling that if someone was riddled with doubts but really wanted faith then Peter was of little help because God was in control and any ‘kneeling at the penitence bench (at camp)’ was of little consequence. Perhaps I am doing him a dis-service. He made many good points and he’s the best I’ve heard so far so please don’t hesitate to point me that way again.
As for my summary point no. 1 (above), I have a little niggle with that and it is the following:
Christ is portrayed as the second Adam (or some would say the last Adam, no matter). Now, the first Adam’s actions had unconditional consequence for the whole of humanity. St Paul is making that parallel and equal statement for the second Adam. But it seems not so! Apparently the first Adam was far more powerful than the second in that the first affected humanity not only universally but unconditionally. But the second Adam didn’t! So that is our conclusion??
Finally, I was reminded how our modern western view of ‘salvation’ is too restricted, too narrow. It doesn’t always refer to the afterlife but may well refer to ‘wholeness’ or ‘wellness’ in this life. In which case I can see how faith is important for our present ‘wellness’ without necessarily affecting our eternal destiny. Any thoughts?
No. Christ’s salvation of the entire cosmos (and humanity along with it) is just as unconditional as the consequences of Adam’s fall. Consider: “As in Adam all die.” But certain things have to happen before you die! If we’re talking about spiritual death, then you have to sin before you can die. If we’re talking about physical death, your heart has to stop beating before you can die. Because of the fall of Adam, all will certainly die, but some secondary effect (sin, heart attack, etc.) has to happen first. Because of Christ’s Incarnation, all will certainly live, but a secondary effect (faith) has to happen first.
Yes. Salvation is not only “going to Heaven when you die”. It is a process in this present life that frees us from the chains of sin. It is depressing how often I’ve been asked, “Well, if everyone is going to go to Heaven anyway, why live a good life?” Precisely because we want the joy that passes all understanding right now. We don’t want to live lives of wretchedness while waiting for Heaven. We want an appetizer, so to speak.
For mine… that IS exactly the primary meaning of “salvation” and again mainly applicable to Jesus’ “last days” generation, but also having an important secondary reality to all beyond those times in terms of an “ongoing salvation” where said salvation is the applicability of divine principles (the Word) to one’s life working a deliverance (salvation) from the toxicities of life to the degree one grasps said principles. THIS then is ‘the salvation’ in view as seen in the likes of…
Jas 1:21* Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.* (again this “to save” is an action as having occurred with active and perpetual effect)
Okay, I thought you addressed your concern in the first sentence of your original post:
Then you quoted a number of verses which indicate that salvation is conditional on faith. What you didn’t clear state is just what is the substance of your concern. So I just took off on the fact that faith is said to be necessary for salvation, but is not sufficient. Discipleship is also necessary.
I still don’t see what your concern is. Do you think that universal salvation is somehow inconsistent with the necessity of faith?
Obviously, in theory, the salvation of all and the necessity of faith aren’t technically contradictory. Too often I hear and read people - people who quite clearly have a limited understanding and often limited experience of studying universal salvation - dismiss universal salvation by saying that you have to have faith in order to be saved. Well, yes, but who’s to say that all will not come into that faith? There is no clear contradiction between these two ideas so you cannot use that as an argument against the salvation of all people. Now obviously that works both ways - I cannot say that because there is no technical contradiction between universal salvation and the necessity of faith that therefore all will be saved. Without looking at any other evidence you’d be stuck with ‘it might or it might not happen’.
Some people will happily agree that there is no clear contradiction between these two things. And those of them who aren’t Calvinists will also affirm that God indeed wants both - he wants people to have faith (because that’s how they receive their salvation) and he wants everyone to be saved. Unfortunately many of them then make a mistake from here. They’ll say that because man has free will and because we cannot prove that all will choose to have faith in God with their free will, that we therefore cannot assert that all will be saved - it is merely a hope. Roger Olson and Greg Boyd are the immediate examples that spring to mind. Unfortunately for them, they then completely contradict themselves on this precise argument because they defend the position that some people, with their free will, will come to reject God - so whilst they say that universalists cannot predict what people will choose to do with their free will and therefore cannot assert universal salvation, they apparently can predict what people will choose to do with their free will because they assert that some will choose to reject God and will never go back on that.
You can’t have your cake and eat it guys!
I get quite irritated with the extremely limited and often unbiblical sense in which salvation is often discussed - both in when salvation takes place (generally assumed to be the afterlife) and what it is from (which is generally assumed to be hell).
The latter for me is probably more irritating; I’ve even seen someone write that we are saved from, and I quote, “the righteous judgement of God”.
There is a sense of course in which we are saved from hell but the angel makes it very clear to Mary what salvation is primarily about when he announces to her she will have a son by the Lord - she is to call Him Jesus (‘the Lord saves’ or ‘the Lord is salvation’) because He will save His people from their*** sins***. The primary goal is not to save people from wrath or hell or judgement but to save them from their sins.
The issue of when salvation takes effect is probably a bit less irritating; I mean most of the effects and results of salvation, even much of the salvation itself will take place after this life. But there’s still problems with holding a view that is limited to the afterlife. The biblical writers speak of salvation in past, present and future tense - we ‘were’ or ‘have been’ saved, we ‘are being’ saved and we ‘will be’ saved. All three fit without contradiction, even when they’re talking about the exact same salvation - we are saved in a sense when we initially turn to Jesus and repent, we are being saved as we become more like Him and we will be saved when we finally come into His likeness and into perfect fellowship with Him.
Hi Pilgrim, I’m glad you got a chance go listen to that sermon. Peter does tend to labour the point, but I suppose he is doing that so that the penny will drop but I see what you mean.
I’m pretty much out of faith at the minute, so hopefully Faith will find me.
Really sorry to read that Catherine. Please consider that Christ’s disciples frequently showed little or no faith but He loved them and I’m sure He saw them all safely home. I worry more about those who seem to never have a ‘wilderness experience’. Real faith allows room for doubts. Paul Tillich said, “Doubt isn’t the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith.”
I understand that the opposite of faith is fear (not doubt) and Jesus will eventually remove our fears because perfect love will cast out all fear.
I’m still listening to Peter Hiett’s weekly sermons, and it just so happens that the latest one deals with this topic:
So that is our conclusion??
