Magic and Literature

[Riothamus]

Actually, on Melchizadek, I was proceeding on the theory of Herman Hoeksema. It was, I believe, primarily Semites that settled in that area.... But I may be wrong.

I suppose the problem I have with your argument about the retroactive nature of Christ's salvation is that you are still condemning to an eternity in Hell everyone who was not an Old Testament saint...

Well, let's clarify what we mean by Old Testament saint. A saint, in my usage, is any believer. So that anyone under the Old Covenant--anyone pre-Christ--who (a.) conformed to God's established pattern of typology, that is, the Jewish religion as it existed before A.D.70, and (b.) did so in the knowledge that such things as the sacrifice were merely "types" pointing to a coming redeemer, was saved. Faith in Christ's coming atonement was then accounted to them for righteousness, and at the death of Christ, which was sufficient to save the entire world, His sacrifice was then put on their account.

I just think it is too inconsistent to believe that God is both (A) Just and (B) willing to condemn people because they we're born Semites or in the Mediterranean basin after Christ's death. These things are logically incompatible.

What do you mean by Just? A Just God--a God who is interested in seeing the demands of the law met (for that is justice,) would be totally correct in wiping the human race off the face of the earth. But a merciful God forgives--is a God who is both just and merciful a contradiction? No--because Christ is the Justice of God, and the Judge of All, and mercifully bore our sufferings.
As to your second point, remember that earlier I said

If God is the initiating factor in salvation, then he can save anyone he wants.

My comment about Melchizadek was more the pedant coming out in me than anything. ;D . But remember, just as God can save anyone He wants, so too He can d*** anyone he wants (why are starring out theological terms? ) It's all about Him. And the light of nature--the entire world--testifies (a.) that there is a God, and (b.) that He demands obedience. Go back to Romans 1. So that even if someone has never heard the Gospel, he can still see these facts all around him, and is condemned by them because he does not do as his concience tells him. And, according to justice, this is sufficent for God to send him to be with the devil and his angels.

unless you're willing to committ yourself to the position the substitutive nature of sacrifice, in which case one really could pray for the atonement of a departed person and them be saved--at least, at first, we'll limit this to those who departed before the message of Christ came to them. But that, iin itself, rasises a stickey issue; what about places which didn't the opportunity to hear the Christian message until long after the ressurection? Do those people likewise get condemned, or can they too be retoractively saved by descendents atoning for them?

See, it's only Christ's death that is retroactive--all Old Covenant sacrifices pointed forward to Him, and after His death, such sacrifices were no longer valid. And remember, only Christ's death was sufficent to atone for the lost, because only an Immortal and Pure Being (whether you're monophysite, Nestorian, or Docetist,) can make expiation, because the Law has no demands on Him.

[dinadan]

So when you say "[the theoretical person in question} is condemned by them because he does not do as his concience tells him" are you implying then that you do in fact believe in the idea of the virtuous pagan who lives in good conscience and is therefore saved? If that is the case, you have just committed yourself to a position that is antithetical to the one you have also espoused that one must have been born a Jew or at least a Semite to be able to recieve salvation because only their sacrifices pointed to that of Christ.

And God cannot be Just if God condemns people who had no chance at Salvation--because when He defines the parameters of the Law and who recieves it, He is therefore condemning those to whom the Law did not come, unless he has some other operative mechanism for their salvation (in the method of substitutive sacrfice/theology of substitution as I have been promoting).

[Riothamus]

I think you're missing my point. I didn't state that only Semites could be saved under the Old Covenant--I said that only those who ascribed to what is now called Judaism--temple sacrifices, et cetera. As to

So when you say "[the theoretical person in question} is condemned by them because he does not do as his concience tells him" are you implying then that you do in fact believe in the idea of the virtuous pagan who lives in good conscience and is therefore saved?

I'm implying nothing of the sort; no man can keep the law. That's why Christ had to live a life of perfect lawkeeping for us. The light of nature is sufficient to show that there's a God and that He demands obedience, but it isn't (and I should have been more explicit on this,) sufficient to save man. No man--no fallen man--can please God by anything he does, because of the fact that he is fallen, sinful, condemned under the Law. The Law cannot save, it can only condemn.

And God cannot be Just if God condemns people who had no chance at Salvation--because when He defines the parameters of the Law and who recieves it, He is therefore condemning those to whom the Law did not come, unless he has some other operative mechanism for their salvation (in the method of substitutive sacrfice/theology of substitution as I have been promoting).

Remember, I referred to Romans 1? All men have the Law in their hearts. The "Moral Law" which Lewis speaks of in Mere Christianity--a standard everyone knows, but no one can live up to. So that all--Jew, Gentile, everyone--stand under the condemnation of the Law. And God was in no wise obligated to do more--He could justly destroy them all. That is justice; salvation is mercy. The Law was never meant to save--it was intended to condemn man for his own sin. Christ was the vessel of God's mercy, whereby justice was satisfied and at the same time a way of forgiveness provided.
Now, I agree that my view condemns countless non-Jewish--and Jewish, mark you--people who never heard the Gospel. But they knew the Law, and continued to break it, so that they are without excuse and justly condemned. That's hard, I know, but justice is hard.

[Incidentally, I find it fascenating that we've moved from miracles/magic[k] to soterology--everything we believe builds on everything else.]

[dinadan]

I personally can't accept that we can condemn most of the people who have ever lived to hell for something that they could not have helped. I mean when you say "people know the natural moral law but they can't be good on their own"--that puts people in a no-win situation. And I do not believe in the no-win situation, which is, I suppose, what this argument has boiled down to.

I'd also like to point out that in addition to his ideas on the universal moral law, Lewis also believed in the concept of the virtuous pagan. He plainly lays that out in his Preface to Paradise Lost and in his commentary on the poetry of Percy Shelley.

[twyrch]

dinadan said:

I personally can't accept that we can condemn most of the people who have ever lived to hell for something that they could not have helped. I mean when you say "people know the natural moral law but they can't be good on their own"--that puts people in a no-win situation. And I do not believe in the no-win situation, which is, I suppose, what this argument has boiled down to.

I'd also like to point out that in addition to his ideas on the universal moral law, Lewis also believed in the concept of the virtuous pagan. He plainly lays that out in his Preface to Paradise Lost and in his commentary on the poetry of Percy Shelley.

I think what you are talking about is being "justified through faith"... Like the saints who died before the death and ressurection of Christ.

That's how I see it at least....

[Riothamus]

I'd also like to point out that in addition to his ideas on the universal moral law, Lewis also believed in the concept of the virtuous pagan.

I'm aware of that, and (for reasons outlined above,) most strongly disagree with Lewis on that score. I just quoted him because he's what sprang to mind. ;D

when you say "people know the natural moral law but they can't be good on their own"--that puts people in a no-win situation.

Why? That's what Christ's for--He provides an "out" on a no-win situation. If Christ were not provided, then indeed it would be a no-win situation; however, His Righteousness is imputed to those who through faith become one with Him, and His nature becomes part of theirs.

[dinadan]

It's a no-win for people to whom the message of Christ came long after the crucifixion, and a no-win for all people not under the Judaic religon pre-Christ. That's why I don't buy it.

[Riothamus]

O.K. Then on this end it's an empasse. What do you offer in it's place? (I know you've been stating it all along, but I can't find it spelled out anywhere.)

[dinadan]

Yes, I realize that over the course of the discussion, my position has been strung out as needed, so I'll try to offer a condensed, sensibly laid out form of it:

I think that, since we are Christians, we are co-inherent with Christ; we have partaken of his body and of his blood--we are, in effect, one with Christ. As such, we can do what Christ could do. That means, we can also take on the burdens of others as Christ did, and those burdens can include sin. In which case, we can act as substitutes for another, and bear another up to salvation; and, since you, yourself, have pointed out that the sacfice of Christ is not limited by time, this means that one could save someone who has already died. This means, you could save your remote pagan ancestors by praying for them. In fact, this is not terribly far out of bounds for Catholicism; as I've started, I don't think God could be justified in damning those never given a chance for salvation--He could, however, send them into a state like Limbo. From thence, their Christian descendents could rescue them by taking on their burdens of sin and praying for their forgiveness.

Of course, the problem with Limbo is, what happens when the dispensation we are now under comes to a close, and Christ is enthroned in glory for eternity, to all of the souls therein who have not been set free? Well, I can't answer that--maybe they stay there; after all, an eternity in Limbo, while not being in paradise, is sure to be a lot better than Hell. Maybe some other form of restitution could be made for them at the Last Judgement. As to that, I can't say...but I think that this is a lot more fair and just than the opposed position.

[Riothamus]

I think that, since we are Christians, we are co-inherent with Christ; we have partaken of his body and of his blood--we are, in effect, one with Christ. As such, we can do what Christ could do. That means, we can also take on the burdens of others as Christ did, and those burdens can include sin. In which case, we can act as substitutes for another, and bear another up to salvation; and, since you, yourself, have pointed out that the sacfice of Christ is not limited by time, this means that one could save someone who has already died.

So you believe we can literally bear the sins of others in a sacrificial manner? So that I, for instance, could climb up on a cross and die and make expiation for my unsaved ancestors (for that alone, not prayer, would constitute the bearing of other's sins after the manner of Christ.) What happens to Free Will in this case? If they have no choice in the matter--if they're saved because of something I did, without experiencing a change of heart (because the dead cannot change,) then their free will has been violated. Fallen man chooses fallenness; by nature he loves wickedness.
But here I see the central difference between us on this matter is not soterology, but the nature of sin and Free Will. If sin is guilt, as I believe, and as I believe Scripture indicates, then your position is untenable because man is legally dead before God and not worthy of consideration. In Adam's fall we sinn'd all (as the much-derided couplet states,) and became by nature children of wrath, fit for destruction. And history shows that the thoughts of a man's heart are evil from his birth, and he is incapable of doing true good. So that no man chooses salvation in this state, for he hates it and it is foolishness to him. That's where free will comes in. Man isn't helplessly damned by God--he in a sense actively damns himself by rejecting God. This is manifest in his inablility to keep the law, on the one hand, and his active breaking of it on the other. If I can save someone who has already denied God and spat in His face, then God is no Just God, for He does not avenge His Own Law, and man has no free will, for the sinner is saved dispite himself.

[dinadan]

Once again...there is a difference in my mind between someone who denies God--i.e. has had the opportunity for salvation and rejects it--and someone who never was given that option; that is why I believe there must be a special consideration for such people.

Also, it would not be necessary for you to climb up on a cross and be crucified; as a Christian--as someone who has taken the body and blood into yourself--you have become one with Christ. In effect, you have already been cruicified with Christ. Free Will certainly enters into it; perhaps the departed can reject your offered salvific prayers--in which case they'd be removed from Limbo and put into Hell.

I'd like to point out that you have commented on Christ's sacrifice being retroactive in nature; now you want to claim that Christ's power (and hence God's) is limited by coporeal time? No dice, there, I'm afraid. The past iis only past for us--Christ's power transcends that barrier, and so, being co-inherent with Christ, so can our prayers transcend the barrier of time.

[Riothamus]

I'd like to point out that you have commented on Christ's sacrifice being retroactive in nature; now you want to claim that Christ's power (and hence God's) is limited by coporeal time? No dice, there, I'm afraid. The past iis only past for us--Christ's power transcends that barrier, and so, being co-inherent with Christ, so can our prayers transcend the barrier of time.

There's a difference here, though, between the retroactive nature of Christ's atonement and what you're talking about. Christ's death was effective only for those who placed faith in Him in their earthly lives, not for those who rejected God. But you're talking about people who have already made a choice, dead people.
And let me point out that this "difference in my mind between someone who denies God--i.e. has had the opportunity for salvation and rejects it--and someone who never was given that option;" is non-existant. To break the Law is to deny God, and since all have sinned--that is, since all have broken the Law--all have therefore rejected God and, short of God's mercy (as manifested in Christ alone,) they will be damned.

Also, it would not be necessary for you to climb up on a cross and be crucified; as a Christian--as someone who has taken the body and blood into yourself--you have become one with Christ. In effect, you have already been cruicified with Christ.

In which case I would suggest you rephrase your statement regarding taking up other's sins. It's very inexact as it stands.

[dinadan]

It's not inexact at all. As a Christian, as someone who has partaken of the body and blood, you are now in effect part of Christ--with all the rights and priveledes that entails. That means, you can use your Christ-ness (for lack of a better term) to extend salvation to those who have gone one before.

And, you said that to live against the Law is a choice--but, again I say to you, what about the virtuous pagan? You can't tell me that there aren't people who haven't lived very moral lives outside either the Judaic Law or the New Covenant? Now, I'm not talking about the moral athiest of modern times, I'm talking about people living in cultures so far removed that they never had a chance--think about every Native American who lived before the coming of Christianity in the 1500s. Those are the kinds of people I am talking about saving retroactively.

Retroactive is retroactive; who is to say that in the eyes of God, all times are not present?

My position is that it is unjust of God to dang people who never had a chance at salvation; yes, maybe that means He can't let them into Heaven, but that doesn't mean He must consign them to Hell. And, nothing that I have stated is really very much at all outside of Catholic belief (which, whether we like it or not has been the western benchmark since at least the 7th century).

[Riothamus]

Your phrasing is highly inexact--what you mean is clearly not that one can bear the burdens of his ancestors, make expiation as Christ did--for that would indeed imply suffering,-- but that one can channel, or conduct, salvation to them through one's own union with Christ. There's a difference. [And if I was a bit short at the end of that last post, I apologize--I was in a hurry to finish.]

And, you said that to live against the Law is a choice--but, again I say to you, what about the virtuous pagan?

And again I say to you, there is no such animal. Man chooses to live against the Law--either the Judaic Law (which was primarily a covenant-law,) or the so-called "Natural Law," the law written in their hearts. No man can live up to this law, but this failure is a choice--he willfully chooses to break a Law. So that he both cannot--because of his sinful nature--and will not keep the law. Again, I refer you to Romans 1. Having the knowledge of God, they exchange the truth for a lie and become vain in their own imaginations, so that their foolish heart is darkened. The heart of man is evil all of his days. He is born with the sin-guilt of Adam on him, and chooses to continue in that sin.

Now, I'm not talking about the moral athiest of modern times, I'm talking about people living in cultures so far removed that they never had a chance--think about every Native American who lived before the coming of Christianity in the 1500s.

That's exactly who I'm talking about--look at Romans 1. They had the truth and denied it, and so are without excuse.

Retroactive is retroactive; who is to say that in the eyes of God, all times are not present?

You're ignoring my point, and the relation of time to God is not at issue. Christ's death was only retroactive for those who in their life anticipated redemption, and who died before the Redeemer came. The so-called righteous pagan, who was not anticipating this redeemer (though the promise was there from the beginning,) and offering sacrifices to other gods, (which Paul tells us were sacrifices to deamons, not to God,) could therefore not be saved, assuming he existed.

My position is that it is unjust of God to d**n people who never had a chance at salvation; yes, maybe that means He can't let them into Heaven, but that doesn't mean He must consign them to Hell.

You're still throwing that term "just" around, like it means "fair." God is not a "fair" God, by human standards. Look at Job. Look at the sacrifice of Christ--one Man dying for the sins of many; surly that isn't fair. What does "Just" really mean? It's connected to Justice--it means that God carrys out the execution of Justice. And what is justice? It is clearly fulfillment of the Law. And what is the Law? "If you do this, you will surely die." So that sin demands death. Adam sinned, Adam died (though in a redeemed state, having recieved the promise of a Redeemer.) But we all partook in Adam's sin, for in him legally the entire human race was represented. "Whereas by one man, sin entered the world, and through sin death, so that all die, for all have sinned," so that all are lawbreakers, all are sinners. Sin must be judged. Justice states that the sinner dies--no matter if he's heard of the possibility of redemption or not, for redemption is an operation of mercy. So that a Just God would execute justice and condemn all sinners to hell, as per the Law.

And, nothing that I have stated is really very much at all outside of Catholic belief (which, whether we like it or not has been the western benchmark since at least the 7th century).

I'm not going to touch that with a ten-foot pole.

[dinadan]

Your whole worldview is unjust, as I see it. When you say "Man chooses to live against the Law--either the Judaic Law (which was primarily a covenant-law,) or the so-called "Natural Law," the law written in their hearts. No man can live up to this law, but this failure is a choice--he willfully chooses to break a Law. So that he both cannot--because of his sinful nature--and will not keep the law" you are saying that God, being all powerful, has used that power unjustly since he has, in effect, set up a situation in which no human being who was not born a Jew (who kept the Law) before Christ could possible be saved. In fact, your concept of Original Sin and mine obviously don't inhabit the same world; it's the same problem as that of unbaptised infants...do they go to hell, having been stained with Adam's sin, but not having a choice in their salvation? To d**n them would be unjust. It is the same with the pagan who never had a chance for salvation--do you really think that Paul was considering the possibility of people like Native Americans on the other side of the world when he says "For though they knew God they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him"? I think he's talking much more about the culture of the Meditteranean basin in which he is operating, than making a universal statement (this gets us into anotheresting position that I do not believe that the Bible is inerrant). I don't buy that Paul is speaking universally--because I don't think he can; he isn't Christ and he isn't one of the 12, which is why I am always a bit suspicious of Paul. Don't forget that Peter called him out on some of his ravings more than once.

Also, as to my thoughts on Original Sin, I do not think that every human being bears the guilt of Adam's sin; human beings only bear the consequence of that sin, which is death. And here's where I'll equivocate and say that in this I am much closert to Greek Christianity than Roman. (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A_OLD/Original-Sin.html)