Know The Truth

[ben]

I hope I am doing it right this time by starting a new thread. I am reading a book called Know the Truth by Bruce Milne. In one section of the book entitled Unbelief and Judgment, he writes:

It is sometimes urged that the only basis upon which a person may be exposed to the final condemnation of God is explicit rejection of the gospel of Christ. Various scriptures (e.g. Jn 3:18,36; Rom 10-9-12; Eph 4:18) are claimed to represent unbelief as the ground of condemnation. In reply we note:
1. These passages prove only that faith in Christ is the one way of salvation. That is not the same as proving that conscious rejection of Christ if the only ground of condemnation.
2. The Bible represents people as already under condemnation before the gospel is preached to them. It is precisely this prior condemnation to which the gospel is God's gracious answer (Rom 1:16-18).
3. If deliberate rejection of the gospel causes condemnation, and if (as statistics show) a majority of those who hear the gospel do not accept it, then on purely utilitarian grounds we should not preach the gospel at all. This ludicrous conclusion shows how mistaken is the original premise.

Here is my struggle; the writer seems to be saying that rejecting the gospel is not grounds for condemnation. Maybe you guys see it differently.

Ben also commented on this quotation from the book:

"scripture certainly recognizes that people do not enjoy equal opportunity to know God." Further down he says "we must conclude that all have turned away from the light of God, whatever that light in their particular case."

[christopher]

Hi Ben,

It sounds like his main assertion is that if you make rejection of the gospel the only grounds for condemnation, then it would be better not to preach the gospel at all since ignorance would equal salvation.

You may be right that the author is a Calvinist, but nothing you've quoted stands out to me as purely Calvinistic argument so far. The fact is that scripture does support (and experience confirms) that not all people have equal opportunity to hear the gospel and come to Christ in this life. That's not a theological premise, it's merely the reality of cultural and geographical separation.

That's why I'm very sympathetic with the idea that physical death is not the last chance to know Christ come to God. But I can almost guarantee you won't read that in the book you're currently reading .

[ben]

Hi Chris,

Thanks, this makes it more clear. I think you hit it on the nail. Now go find yourself a shark!

[ben]

Reading further along in his book, Bruce Milne directs his views to Hell and Universalism. He says that Universalism holds the view that in the end all people will be saved.

His view is that as far as biblical teaching is concerned it simply will not do. He gives four factors:
1. When scripture speaks of all acknowledging Christ at the end, that does not mean they will do so willingly. No doctrine of universalism can be built on the fact Christ is destined to be revealed as Lord over all at His coming.
2. The gospel was preached in the first century against a background of groups who confined salvation to their particular racial group (Jews), or their monastic communities (the Essenes), or to those who were initiated into their peculiar rites (the pagan mystery religions). Against these exclusive groups, the Christian gospel stands out in its universal appeal. 'Whoever will may come'(Rev 22:17).
3. Thirdly, it is perfectly clear that Paul from whose letters all these texts were culled, was not a universalist (1Cor 1:18-24; Eph 5: 4-6; Phil 1:28).
4. Fourthly, Jesus' teaching is more difficult to interpret in universalist terms. Indeed both his parables (Mt 12: 37-50; 22: 11-14; 25: 40-46) and his discreet assertions provide more warnings about the reality of the final ruin of the impenitent than any other section of scripture.

Only in my new birth to the Aletheia family, have I taken into consideration what universalism is. I must say I have much to learn.

[Josh]

Currently I'm neutral regarding the alternative viepoints on hell (eternal torment, annihililation, or christian universalist), but I have to say, the points Milne lists here against universalist are weak in the extreme and his tendency to use the phrase "perfectly clear/ certainly" seems way to overconfident on these matters.

I would agree with his point that condemnation at the judgment seat of Christ is not limited to outright rejection of Christ, but I don't think his counter-universalist points are very solid. Compare them to Talbott's book for a thorough response.

"scripture certainly recognizes that people do not enjoy equal opportunity to know God."

Chris, why are you so quick to agree with this?

I think that not all people enjoy equal opportunity to know the theology of the New Testament or even to know the name of Jesus, but I'm not sure that all people don't in a very basic way have equal opportunity to "know God" in some way:

Acts 17:26-28

26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

[christopher]

Chris,why are you so quick to agree with this?

As much as I hate to, I gotta give Mo one here. There are more Christians per capita in a Christian culture than there are a non-Christian culture. I think it's self-evident.

That is not to say there aren't exceptions, there are. But a person born and raised with a healthy Christian influence seems to have better chance of knowing God than one who isn't.

I know that verse you used very well, and I quote it often. And I believe it is true that God ordains the time and places of men "so that" they may grope for Him and find Him. But I'd like to call attention to my qualifier in my response to Ben. The fact that most people in history never even so much as hear an inkling of the truth, compels me to be open to God preserving them for a time of His choosing for them to meet Him. Perhaps when they are ready. Perhaps even post-mortem.

[Josh]

The fact that most people in history never even so much as hear an inkling of the truth

It's this statement I'm basically disagreeing with.

I think most people in history have heard much more than just an inkling of the truth. Many have come quite close even without hearing the name of Jesus. There is so much truth embedded in the world's religions and philosophies, and simply within all hearts, that I believe is of a Godly origin.