Obama's Unreal Religion

In the interview for the Newsweek cover story on his faith, Senator Obama had this to say in response to a question about whether people with different religious convictions go to Heaven:

It's a precept of my Christian faith that my redemption comes through Christ. But I'm also a big believer in the Golden Rule, which I think is an essential pillar not only of my faith, but of my values and my ideals and my experience here on Earth. And I'm also a believer, as part of my faith, that I am a limited being, with limited understanding. And so I operate on the basis of, I operate knowing what I know for myself, but not presuming that I know everything, certainly not enough for me to condemn others, or to presume that their path is wrong.

Now, facts are either true or untrue - for everyone.  Either Jesus is the Savior for everyone because He reconciles us with God or He isn't.  It's not true for some of us, and some other fact is true for others.

This, of course, isn't an unusual sentiment these days - even among those who profess Christ, as the Senator does.  But the only way a rational person can make such a statement is if they don't believe religion is objectively true with any factual basis.  This kind of statement can only be made if religion is a different kind of conviction than the rest of our beliefs that we live and function by.  Religion is a personal preference with no objective, rational, truthful basis.  The evidence that this is how Senator Obama views religion is how he treats other things he believes in, like politics.  He is running for president because he thinks he knows the solutions for America and he's comfortable saying that President Bush and Senator McCain are wrong in politics.  Why else would you run for president and be interested in putting your ideas into public policy and law?  So he's comfortable presuming he knows true things that he wants to persuade others of in politics, but not religion because religion is somehow not truthful or factual in the same way.

Sure, we can believe Christianity is true, yet also be humble about our beliefs.  Humility and conviction about truth aren't contradictory.  If Christianity is true, a fact, then it's only logical that we feel compelled to offer the most important solution to our human condition to everyone and anyone.  And they're free to tell us what they think the solution is.  What isn't rational is to put religion in the category of personal preference and still think that it's real.

Let me make this point, too:  Disagreeing with someone's religion is not condemning them.  Saying someone will go to Hell isn't condemning them.  It's expressing a viewpoint.  We don't have control over whether someone goes to Heaven or Hell, and it's possible we are wrong.  But it's God who condemns - or forgives.  Not us.  This common compulsion to compare disagreement with condemnation is false

Either Jesus is the Savior for everyone, or He's the Savior for no one.

Francis Schaeffer analyzed this "second-story leap" in his pointed and short book Escape from Reason.  It'll provide you an enlightening perspective on discourse about religion in our modern culture, even within the church.

Comments

[Karen A.]

Enough to make the emergent crowd proud!

[Lora]

I am continually frustrated by STR’s insistence on discussing inclusivism as though it were relativism. Can we just put that misunderstanding to rest once and for all?

Obama was asked whether or not he believed practitioners of other faiths will go to Heaven. Obama seems to answer by saying the following:

1.) He doesn’t know enough to be confident on this issue.
2.) He doesn’t presume that the paths of other religious folks are wrong.

Now, there are many things he could mean by this that would clear him from the big monster of “relativism” we are constantly told about.

First, he could be saying that he doesn’t know that other faiths are factually incorrect because he doesn’t know that his own faith is correct. Perhaps Obama is working with an epistemology that convinces him that though he believes in Christianity, the truth of Christianity isn’t something he can know to be true, or, if we prefer to interpret the claim even weaker, that Christianity isn’t something he in fact knows to be true. And as far as I see it, that would clear him from the charge of relativism. He would simply be reporting to us facts about his own epistemic system.

Second, he could be saying that though he knows his own faith to be true, he isn’t sure if other faiths are wrong in the sense of “guaranteeing damnation.” Now this has some plausibility given the nature of the question. In that case, Obama may hold the following:

3.) Christianity is true (Christ really is the Son of God and the Savior of the world).
4.) Whatever contradicts Christianity is false.
5.) Christ will save some non-Christians.

Now can we all agree that this certainly is not relativism? It might be false (I happen to think there is very little reason to think it’s false), but it’s not relativism. It looks to me like some sort of soteriological inclusivism, not a doctrinal pluralism.

Now, maybe Obama is some sort of religious relativist, but I don’t see much reason in that quote to think he is. Everything he said is consistent with him thinking that Christ really is the Son of God and really did get crucified and so Islam got it wrong on those points. He may just believe that the true Savior of the world will end up redeeming a lot of Muslims who had false beliefs about him.

It seems a lot of people think he's a secret Muslim or something. The suspicion of the Evangelical Right about his faith is predictable. After thirty years of equating Christianity and Republicanism, considering a Christian Democrat has a ring of contradiction to it. But as Obama engages his faith publically and McCain remains virtually silent on his, and as leaders like Dobson mock Obama and claim they will never vote for McCain, you will see the Evangelical community get out of bed with the Right and realize that you can be a Christian and vote for a Democrat. It's going to happen, it already is.

--Lora

[Scott]

It tells me he doesn't know his Bible very well. This isn't about politics, it is about a public figure that professes faith in a watered-down gospel that seeks to please people. Joel Osteen and his ilk catch the same flack on this blog and rightly so.

[Kevin W]

What should we expect from one who has no desire to save a baby who survives an abortion?

We should have no expectations from Obama. None. Zero.

Lora,

I agree, you can be a Christian and vote Democrat – Christians do many strange things - Just to note.

[Amy Hall]

>>Perhaps Obama is working with an epistemology that convinces him that though he believes in Christianity, the truth of Christianity isn’t something he can know to be true, or, if we prefer to interpret the claim even weaker, that Christianity isn’t something he in fact knows to be true.

Lora, out of curiosity, what does it mean to say a person believes in Christianity but doesn't know it's true? When you use the word "believe" in this situation, what are you describing?

[Sam]

I second what Lora said.

But I suspect that Obama's statement has little to do with his religious beliefs. After all, I don't think you can get elected if you are a Christian and you publicly state the members of other faiths will not go to heaven. Obama didn't answer the question. He just said something that would get him by. So who know what he really thinks!

And who cares? He's running for president. It isn't the president's concern whether people go to heaven or hell when they die. The president's only concern is the living. I think if I were running for president and somebody asked that of me, that's what I'd say. I'd answer, "What difference does it make? My job as president requires me to concern myself with the living, not the dead."

[SocietyVs]

“Saying someone will go to Hell isn't condemning them. It's expressing a viewpoint”

Yes, that is condemnation. It’s a judgment no of us are qualified to make on our limited basis of knowledge – we are not God. The final resting place is not our judgment to make – so to tell someone they are going to hell is also to presume we are confident of this judgment. I would say – based on what and why?

‘Either Jesus is the Savior for everyone, or He's the Savior for no one.”

This is flawed thinking. Aren’t some people going to hell according to the last paragraph? Then obviously some people do not have a savior – as compared to some that are going to heaven. Now if Jesus is the savior for all – if they choose to accept that – then we have a qualifier called choice in the process.

In my opinion, Obama is stating the absolute obvious – which is also an absolute – we cannot know everything about everyone else. If we do, then we are god(s) also – we have intuitive knowledge about other people, their intentions, their thoughts, etc. I think Obama is stating that people from other faiths may very well be saved – and I tend to agree.

I think Jesus’ message was one of following the teachings of God – not only about belief in God. Belief in God means we also have the actions that accompany that – true? Well if someone else does those same things because of their belief in God – who are we to say ‘you are going to hell because you do not believe right’?
If we go down that path – the same argument can be made for Christianity in a few ways:

(a) There are a variety of denominations in the Christian realm – but all of them hold to Jesus as the Messiah. In some sense, they believe correctly – but they all have some differences in them that change the message or meaning of rituals or what have you. How can we decide which of the denoms is accurate? Scripture…they all use that too.

(b) The idea Jesus is God is runs counter to Jewish belief. It’s a breaking of commandment #1 – ‘you shall have no other Gods beside me’ or the ‘Shema ‘ God is One’.
Couldn’t one also argue that Christians are venturing down the wrong path also by venerating Jesus to God status? I think that is a possibility.

So, believing right and accurately is nice, but it’s also a problem in our own faith – as much as we think we have it all ‘cracked up’.

[Mike]

I am continually frustrated by the insistence of some to discuss inclusivism as though it were relativism. Can we just put that misunderstanding to rest once and for all?
[Inclusivism implies relativism. Therefore, it is justifiable for Melinda to respond with arguments against Obama’s (truth) relativism]

1.) He doesn’t know enough to be confident on this issue.
[Why you think he will draw some of the evangelical vote then (as you assert at the end of your comment) is beyond me. I have no intention of voting for someone who consistently addresses faith issues without the integrity or intellectual honesty to express that he lacks theological knowledge and reflection on the subject. Instead, he defers to the canard (that is sure to win him votes) that he believes in what is true for him without judging others’ “paths.”]

2.) He doesn’t presume that the paths of other religious folks are wrong.
[Since some religious paths are wrong, and he refuses to argue for any particular position but remains as slippery as a wet fish in his rhetoric, it only reinforces my suspicion, not of whether his faith is genuine, but rather that his faith does not touch (improve) his character. John McCain on the other hand has proven integrity and character.]

Now, there are a couple of things he could mean by this that would clear him from the big monster of “relativism” we are constantly told about.
[I take from your use of the word “monster” and the quotes around relativism that you intend to convey a mildly sardonic tone here, so I must respond. Since relativism in various forms has engulfed all of secular society, it can safely be characterized as a monster. Why you think Christians should not address this as the problem it is when engaging the culture with Christ’s truth claims, is enigmatic.]

First, he could be saying that he doesn’t know that other faiths are factually incorrect because he doesn’t know that his own faith is correct. Perhaps Obama is working with an epistemology that convinces him that though he believes in Christianity, the truth of Christianity isn’t something he can know to be true, or, if we prefer to interpret the claim even weaker, that Christianity isn’t something he in fact knows to be true. And as far as I see it, that would clear him from the charge of relativism.
[If his statements assert the nature of truth is relative, then regardless of his adopted epistemology, he is a relativist.]

The suspicion on the part of the religious right concerning Obama's faith is predictable. It seems like a lot of people think he's a Muslim, or a "secret Muslim," or whatever. Some of this is probably because he is a relatively unknown and new figure on the political scene. Some of it is probably because after thirty years of Evangelicals equating Christianity and Republicanism, being presented with a Democrat who “seems to be” [< --- key phrase] an authentic Christian has a ring of contradiction to it.
[It may be true that many evangelicals have equated Christianity with the Republican party, but why might that be, Lora? Could it be that the principles (both personal and political) that undergird the Republican platform align more closely with those found in the Bible? Many have complained that the Republican party has been hijacked by the religious right (the heart of your statement) while ignoring the fact that the Democrats have been hijacked by a leftist, Marxist agenda; I’m guessing you would be one of those who think that way. The Democratic party of today is far afield from the Democratic party of JFK.]

[We should expect someone who is weak in his theological epistemology to have no confidence in addressing the metaphysical question of whether people with religious convictions other than Christianity will go to heaven. Further, I think the press is trying to demonstrate to the rest of the relativist culture that Obama is not an evangelical (notice the encoded question “will those who do not believe in Jesus go to hell” – this has long been the litmus test for the press) while allowing him to pontificate in religious language with the hopes that he will win the votes of some misguided individuals, of which you appear to be one.]

[Lora]

Amy Hall,

What I mean when I say Obama "believes" in Christianity without "knowing" that it's true is that Obama may think the standard for knowledge is high enough that religious belief doesn't count as knolwedge. This certainly doesn't mean, however, that Obama cannot believe it is true. I myself am making no claims regarding religious epistemology. I'm just noting that it is possible to believe that Christianity is something that can be believed without being known. Kierkegaard might be an example of this. Immanuel Kant seems to be. In any case, that is not relativism. Surely there are many things that can be believed but not known (maybe someone believes Obama will be president, but lack the warrant necessary to know that). Obama may think his own religious faith (though perhaps not the faith of all believers) qualifies as belief that is short of knowledge. That, friends, is not relativism. And that would make sense of the quote above.

Also, like I said, interpreting him as a soteriological inclusivist would also make sense of his statements. We don't have to get out our big relativist hammers every time someone expressses hope for the salvation of non-Christians.

--Lora

[Lora]

Mike,

I'm going fishing in a second, so I don't have a lot of time at the moment. However, soteriological inclusivism (the belief that Christ will save some non-Christians) in no way, shape, or form implies relativism. John Stott is an example of an inclusivist, but he's no relativist. C.S. Lewis is an inclusivist, but no relativist. Clark Pinnock is an inclusivist, but no relativist. Vatican II gave hope for inclusivism, but no hope at all for relativism. So, to say that soteriological inclusivism implies relativism is simply false. What, in virtue of saying Christ may save some non-Christians, commits you to the laughable idea that the truth value of propositions changes depedning on what side of the ocean one is on? Relativism is a joke and is in no way implied by inclusivism, which maintains that it is objectively true that God is reconciling the world to Him through Christ, and may do this for some non-Christians.

--Lora

[Amy Hall]

>>I think Obama is stating that people from other faiths may very well be saved – and I tend to agree. I think Jesus’ message was one of following the teachings of God – not only about belief in God. Belief in God means we also have the actions that accompany that – true? Well if someone else does those same things because of their belief in God – who are we to say ‘you are going to hell because you do not believe right’?

S., I think it's important to remember that the ultimate goal of Christianity is not to get us to do good things but to be reconciled to the one, true God. God doesn't want our actions without our hearts. From Hosea 6:6: "For I desire steadfast love [love and fidelity to the true God] and not sacrifice [a list of actions to perform], the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." In other words, a Hindu who is worshipping a different god while generally being nice to others and helping the poor has still not had his problem solved--the problem that he has committed treason and rebellion against the true God and needs to have his sins forgiven in order to be with God for eternity. If Jesus really is who He said He is, then there's no way to do that except through Him. In other words, if Christianity is true, then there is no other way to God.

[Amy Hall]

Lora,

First, I want to say that it matters little to me what Obama's beliefs about Christianity are in terms of the election (and I think it's ridiculous that reporters are asking him these questions); I'm only discussing this as an illustration of beliefs in our culture. He just happens to make statements that everyone hears and can be used as a publicly available illustration.

Having said that, I appreciate you trying to find the best in what he says, but his statements don't sound to me like inclusivism. For example, he says he "knows for him" that Christianity is true. That's different from saying he knows it's true, but God might still save others. The two statements have very different meanings in our culture. And he doesn't just say that someone else might be saved through the true work of Christ, which would be the position of an inclusivist. It's one thing to talk about inclusivism (i.e., the idea that someone might be serving the true God without knowing it and be saved--that people of other faiths might be saved even though they're on the wrong path) and another to say that you can't presume the other path is wrong. If one believes Christianity to be true in a real sense--that Jesus is the way and no one comes to the Father except through Him--then aren't the other paths wrong (even if a few might be saved on them)?

At the very least, he's putting religion in a different category--something that can't be known, something we can't make truth claims about (exactly what you're arguing he said). In other words, politics is something that can be known--something we can make judgments about and discuss in terms of how its consequences in reality affect everybody, religion is not. That's why Melinda refers to the Kierkegaardian "second-storey-leap" at the end of the post, and that's the problem being addressed here as well as the problem I was addressing with Os Guinness's quote the other day. This idea that Christianity is outside the area of rational discussion and debate puts it in a different category from everything else in life. I see that as a problem that has negative implications in the lives of all Christians who believe it.

[ryan]

Good call Amy... Religious conviction is never a "separate category". Is reflects a worldview. Religious-moral questions are the most important ones to be asked of a candidate seeking public office.

[Brad B]

Hi Sam, help me understand your statement about concerning ones self with the living and not the dead. Do you honestly think that there is no connection? I'm sure I must be misunderstanding what your point is.

SocietyVs, in your closing remark you seem to imply that God has left us without clarity on the essentials such that you cannot confidently defend Jesus' divinity and have to worry about "going down the wrong path". It seems that you are concerned if the gospel isn't inclusivistic, we have to temper it. I may be misunderstanding you also, if so, please clarify.

Lora, what do you make of this scripture?

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." ?

Then, when you say:
"Relativism is a joke and is in no way implied by inclusivism, which maintains that it is objectively true that God is reconciling the world to Him through Christ, and may do this for some non-Christians."

If you believe Jesus in the scriptures, AND what you wrote here, you are the relativist you've spent time castigating.

Unless of course like the two before you, I may be misunderstaning.

Brad B

[Brad B]

Hi Melinda, your statement here is one that caught my attention:

"Sure, we can believe Christianity is true, yet also be humble about our beliefs. Humility and conviction about truth aren't contradictory."

Not only *can* we believe Christianity is true and be humble, we *must* believe and be humble. Luther would've argued as I will that humiity is necessary IF we believe that salvation is a work of God and not of man. The man centered view that holds out some glory for man as he "accepts" Jesus as a choice lends itself to some degree of pride. It would be irrational for it not to be so. But since the Christian faith is rational, that man centered position and humility cannot coexist therefore, I use the word "must". Even a staunch Arminian will admit that it is the work of the Spirit, but in leaving room for man to "choose", he leaves room for humility to wane.

Brad B

[Francis Beckwith]

May I throw a monkey wrench in this discussion? It seems to me that one can be an exclusivist and a relativist. For example, suppose someone claims that those who make it to heaven do so exclusively because God chooses them and no other basis than his absolute willfulness. One could, in that case, claim to be an exclusivist but also claim that there is no standard except God's capricious will. That is, anything goes if God wills it.

One more thing: it is clear that the Bible teaches Jesus as the only savior. But it's quite a leap from that to the claim that only those who have made a conscious and purposeful affirmation of Jesus' Lordship as well as the particulars of the Nicene Creed are making it into heaven. For if that were the case, then what do we do with all the people who have not had the opportunity to commit to Jesus and orthodox theology?

Between the resurrection and the ascension, for example, there were 40 days. During those days tens of thousands of people died across the globe. What is their eternal fate? Like Obama, I think it's appropriate to answer, "I don't know." But epistemological modesty on that question does not mean that one is required to say that Christianity cannot be known to be true, which is essentially what Obama is claiming.

It would be interesting to see Obama's reaction to this line of questioning: When you say that you would not judge another's faith as mistaken, does that mean that you think it is wrong for missionaries to try to evangelize people to become Christians? If yes, then aren't you saying that the missionaries' faith is mistaken, which would violate your principle that it is wrong to judge another's faith as mistaken? If no, then you are conceding that you really don't accept the principle that it is wrong to judge another's faith as mistaken.

Let's see how the Midway Messiah gets around that query.

[Mo]

He's so full of baloney. The fact that many people actually consider him to be a follower of Christ is appalling.

[Sage S.]

Lora,

Obama's last sentence in the excerpt is both inclusive regarding salvation and pluralistic regarding spirituality. He knows what he knows for himself (relative), but will not condemn others (inclusive) nor presume that any other spiritual path is wrong (plural). So while I agree with you that Christian inclusivity need not equate to spiritual relativism, Obama seems clearly to espouse all of the above (at least rhetorically).

Clearly he's trying to be all things to all demographics - a pluralist, inclusive, relativistic, orthodox Christian, liberal/moderate, bipartisan... While he effortlessly integrates an impressive battery of diverse philosophies, I'm left wondering who the man behind the gifted oratory really is. He is an artisan of rhetoric. But rhetoric doesn't balance the budget, doesn't prevent domestic acts of terrorism, doesn't stabilize weakening economies. Rhetoric doesn't appoint politically impartial Supreme Court Justices.

The only political takeaway from Obama's religious positions is that he's working very hard to appeal to everyone, but that his convictions tend toward the vague and lofty rather than the particular and principled.

You say he is not relativistic; I say he embodies relativism. It is his political brand - he is whoever you want him to be for you. The postmodern politics of empowerment...

[William Wilcox]

Obama has no problem declaring John McCain's political ideas wrong but he cannot bring himself to declare other peoples religious beliefs wrong.

Obama has confidence that his political opinions can produce real knowledge he can declare but his Christianity apparently cannot give him the same confidence.

Personally, I have no confidence that Obama has thought about the kinds of issues raised by Lora, Amy and others in this thread even after attending a church for 20 years. Yet he may have.

I doubt that we hear all of what Obama really believes in his public speeches.

I would be surprised to learn that he had ever heard of Franscis Schaeffer much less read any of his books.

Tom Gilson has a post on Christian exclusivism here:

http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2008/07/not-one-of-the-universes-nice-ideas/

[Lora]

Amy Hall, Brad B, and Sage S,

Might I begin this response by pointing out something that immediately frustrated me about this blog? The title. Surely we all see a double-meaning here. For the intellectually savy, they will understand that the blog charges Obama with being a relativist of sorts about religious truths. Fine. But in a culture very suspicious of his commitment to Christ (that is, Evangelicals over 40 who are still starry-eyed over Falwell and Dobson), another point is conveyed—Obama might be a fake Christian, a fraud, a “depart from me I never knew you, you dirty Muslim” Christian. I suppose from what I’ve heard from him and from my conviction that it is good to extend a charitable and hopeful ear towards people, I have taken him at his word. With titles like that, STR runs the risk of appearing like they are just stepping right into that long and old line of Christians who think that it’s metaphysically impossible to follow Christ (no, I mean REALLY follow Christ) and be a Democrat or vote for one.

Amy,

Perhaps Obama is a relativist, which may be evidenced by him saying “know for myself” (Isn’t this perfectly true in any event? Who else can you know for? It may be a bit redundant, but as far as I can tell it is true) I personally don’t find that particular phrase too compelling towards thinking he is a relativist (if he had said “true for me,” well, that would be a different issue entirely), but Obama-interpretation is a very young and emerging area of scholarship and one I’m not interested in, especially regarding fine points of his religious faith.

However, I would like to say that I think there are fewer relativists out there than STR would lead its viewers to believe. Maybe that’s a bit strong. In any case, I don’t think that just because someone uses the language typical of a relativist that that is good reason to think they are a relativist. Many are just conditioned into giving lipservice to the idea but don’t actually have any conviction on the matter. Their thoughts on the issue extends no further than their disposition to use poorly worded phrases. In any case, I would be surprised if Obama actually believes that Christ is the Son of God, so long as we’re thinking in a Church in America, but isn’t in a Mosque in Iran. In summary, I think there are more people who use the language of a relativist than there are people who actually believe relativism. At the level of actual thought-out conviction, I tend to think the idea is wildly unpopular (In my experience teaching philosophy students, most begin the class speaking in relativist terms, but once the problems with relativism are exposed, they end up agreeing it’s bankrupt but also saying they never believed THAT nonsense).

Lastly, you state that at least he’s putting religion in a different category as something that can’t be known. Well, he may not be doing that either. His claim may be just that it is not something he himself knows about, though in principle it could be known. After all, he says “I operate knowing what I know for myself, but not presuming that I know everything, certainly not enough for me to condemn others, or to presume that their path is wrong.” That entire quote concerns his own epistemic state and doesn’t explicitly make any comment on the ability of humans to know truths of religion.

Brad B,

You ask what I think of the following Scripture: John 3:3, Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Well, I think it’s true (is this shocking or unexpected for some reason?). And I don’t see why you would wonder if I thought that was true. Of course no one is saved who isn’t regenerated! But where in that Scripture do you see the following: “Oh, and by the way, the only people that will be regenerated are those that have true beliefs about particular claims about Jesus”? Beckwith is right. It is one thing to say that only those regenerated are saved, or that only those who go through Jesus are saved. It is quite another thing entirely (and quite a silly non-Biblical thing to be frank about it) to say that Christ will only save those that intellectually assent to some list of doctrines on a doctrinal orthodoxy chart.

Sage S,

I don’t think Obama saying that he can’t know that another path is wrong makes him a pluralist. Like I said, the question concerned the fate of non-Christians. Obama may just be saying that he can’t presume other faiths are “wrong” in the sense of “guaranteeing damnation,” rather than in the sense of “factually incorrect about the Incarnation or whatever.

But anyway, it means little to me either way. I don’t think Obama is a relativist, though he may have adopted language from a culture that expresses itself that way. It seems to me that what is far more likely is that a community that sees relativism behind every bush and door (that is, the Evangelical community) is out again looking for that dragon they love to slay. After all, relativism is an easy target, can be refuted to the satisfaction of most with slogans and one-liners, and so it would be nice to turn a lot of issues (inclusivism included) into something about relativism. If those Christians of the persuasion that inclusivism is not only false but “dangerous” could equate it somehow with relativism, then we wouldn’t have to bother with a new view to consider, but could bring out those old and faithful one-liners that worked so effectively against the relativists.

Obama is not a genuine relativist. He’s a politician. He’s using poorly worded phrases, but other than that I don’t know that much substantial by way of charges can be leveled against him.

--Lora

[Lora]

Dr. Beckwith,

I laughed at the "Midway Messiah" comment. You're right. The media seems to be convinced (along with a lot of the public) that Obama was born in a manger and can walk on water. People seem to think he transcends the world of "old" and "dirty" politics in the land of ideals, a political Platonic heaven, perhaps. That's insane. The guy is a politician. He's "changed his mind" on gun control, public finance system, immunity for phone companies that cooperate with wiretapping, and perhaps his strategy in Iraq. Clearly he's moving to the center for the sake of the general election, just like a politican who isn't the Messiah would.

--Lora

[Amy Hall]

>>I don’t think that just because someone uses the language typical of a relativist that that is good reason to think they are a relativist. Many are just conditioned into giving lipservice to the idea but don’t actually have any conviction on the matter.

I absolutely agree with that point and with the rest of that paragraph. I do think the main problem is that people haven't thought through this issue (that's why we're here!). But the problem is that what has resulted in our culture overall is a lazy view of religion that tries to avoid conflict and ignores the question of truth. The language of our culture, as we saw with Obama's quote, reflects this. Christians absorb this, and it affects them, even if they haven't thought it through. My goal is to help bring this to light for Christians so they can think about Christianity as a claim about reality instead of lazily resting on a culture that doesn't talk about or treat religion that way.

In terms of some of your other concerns, I think that, because of the frustration you've carried over from other venues, you've read some things into this blog that just aren't there. You keep arguing against people saying Christians can't be Democrats and bringing up people who say Obama is a Muslim as if those things had anything to do with this post. In fact, back in March, Melinda wrote a post specifically condemning people who raise questions about Obama being a Muslim:

"Raising the question seems to me an irresponsible and cheap form of fear-mongering to associate him with a religion we have legitimate concerns about now."

>>But where in that Scripture do you see the following: “Oh, and by the way, the only people that will be regenerated are those that have true beliefs about particular claims about Jesus”?

Here's one to consider: Romans 10:13-15--For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?

[Joel L. Watts]

Melina, looks like you have a lot of comments already, but I though that I would add my 1.3 cents here. I believe that Christianity is the only way. Period. But, why does the religious beliefs of a person who is running for public office matter? We are not electing them as Pastor in Chief, are we?

[Lora]

Amy Hall,

I really do appreciate you pointing out that it's not quite fair to mix STR in with some of what has been going on in the Christian community regarding Obama. That quote from Melinda is helpful, and I was unaware of it. Thanks for the clarification. I have no interest in getting things wrong on that point.

Regarding that Scripture in Romans, I suppose that if it means that to be saved you must acquire some intellectual assent to a set of orthodox propositions about the identity and saving work of Christ appropriated though faith, then I relinquish all hope for those who die in infancy, the mentally handicapped, those who have never heard the gospel (and yes, I know that it is wrong to say that people go to hell for not believing in Jesus. I think it is equally wrong to think that that observation does much to address the real issue about those who have never heard), and the saints in the Old Testament (here I am repeatedly told that in the New Covenant things are different, that there is now a new epistemic requirement for salvation, and am also told that this too is biblical).

I think that God’s salvation is sovereign (I’m a Calvinist, btw) and extends to whomever he wishes. I also think Scripture has not told us that God only wishes to save those that attain to theological orthodoxy. Abraham was saved, despite his lack of belief in the Trinity, Christ, etc. If God saves even one person who dies in infancy, that’s enough to show that it isn’t logically or metaphysically necessary to believe (in the sense of “intellectual assent”) in Christ to be saved. Furthermore, I think it is possible to serve God without knowing it, and perhaps many non-Christians have done just that. Since God is identical to truth, goodness, and beauty, perhaps those who pursue those things, though they don’t know it, are actually pursuing God, though with their lips they may say that they are not pursuing God. And do we not see in Scripture a clear case of people serving God without knowing it? Remember in Gospels where some come to Christ and say, “When did we feed you and clothe you and give you drink?” Christ said something like, “When you did it to the least of these you did it to me.” So, clearly, these people served Christ without knowing it. Israel followed Christ without knowing it (1 Cor 10:4). So, it is possible to be a Christian and not know about Christ. Abraham was. The faithful of Israel were. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb. I don’t guess he had to reach some epistemic standard for that to take place. God simply sovereignly chose to impart his Spirit to an infant. Why think that God will not save Abraham, those who die in infancy, the mentally handicapped, etc? Is it unreasonable to think he will save at least some in those categories? Well, if he will, then clearly God does not always require intellectual assent as a precondition for salvation, which opens up the possibility that he may not require it for others.

That, of course, doesn't answer your question about Ro 10. But it gives you a background for how I would begin thinking about that sort of thing before I ever looked at the text.

--Lora

[Claire]

Bravo, Lora, for a charitable reading of Obama that recognizes the distinctions between inclusivism and relativism and belief (even true belief) and knowledge.

[dewayneward]

I thought to be identified as a Christian, you have to believe that JC is the ONLY way to Heaven (and place your faith in him).

I see a lot of words being bantered about here....lets go to the book:

John 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

I am personally insulted, as a Christian, when people give lip service to "well, I believe that JC is my savior, but other people might be right and their way may work for them".

Hogwash. JC said over 100 times he is it (get Greg's book for a list of passages). He is the only way to heaven. PERIOD (according to the book).

When a person says that there is some other way, you are calling my savior stupid (and a liar) because if salvation could have been done some other way, JC didnt have to hang on a cross. I mean, really, think about it. Take off your "theology" glasses and think about it for a moment. If doing good works, getting baptized, praying to allah, one of the X number of other Gods, being a good person, whatever could get you to heaven, then there was no reason for JC to die.

Obama has chosen his God. He will be judged, if the bible is true, accordingly. He is not a Christian. I am not name calling. A Christian is someone that has placed his faith in Christ and believes that he is the ONLY way to heaven. Obama, by his own words, is not a Christian by that definition.

Now, I could be wrong that JC is not the only way to heaven....but that makes JC either wrong or a liar (yes, I'm aware I am making the lord,lunatic,liar argument), but he cant be "A" way.

[Louis Kuhelj]

"Yes, that is condemnation. It’s a judgment no of us are qualified to make on our limited basis of knowledge – we are not God. The final resting place is not our judgment to make – so to tell someone they are going to hell is also to presume we are confident of this judgment. I would say – based on what and why?"

I have always heard it stated in a form that includes conditions that must be met for a person to be going to hell. I think that it is much more appropriate to point out the current direction an individual seems to be heading based on evidence presented. That way, the individuals can be offered an opportunity to change directions.

So, telling someone they are going to hell, could mean that they are heading in that direction, not that it will ultimately be their destination for eternity. As you said, that is not something for us to judge, but that does not mean we cannot discern what direction they are heading in at present time.

[Louis Kuhelj]

"Well, if he will, then clearly God does not always require intellectual assent as a precondition for salvation, which opens up the possibility that he may not require it for others. "

Intellectual assent is inadequate for salvation. The devil believes this way and trembles. If the devil is not going to heaven on the basis of intellectual assent, why would anyone thing they will?

"Abraham was saved, despite his lack of belief in the Trinity, Christ, etc. If God saves even one person who dies in infancy, that’s enough to show that it isn’t logically or metaphysically necessary to believe (in the sense of “intellectual assent”) in Christ to be saved"

I don't buy this thing about Abraham not having faith, but I do go along with the fact he didn't know about Christ as we do today. But simply because salvation worked a certain way back then, doesn't mean that it works that way today, unless someone can present some evidence that there is no difference between the old covenant and the new one, I will have a hard time accepting that.

"Since God is identical to truth, goodness, and beauty, perhaps those who pursue those things, though they don’t know it, are actually pursuing God, though with their lips they may say that they are not pursuing God. And do we not see in Scripture a clear case of people serving God without knowing it?"

Serving God saves no one. Jesus Christ saves everyone that will be saved. He saved Abraham just as He saved everyone from the cross on. The bible clearly states that Abraham saw his day and rejoyced John 8:56.
This is from the lips of Jesus himself...so, I don't know how this stands up to scruitiny.
I am a bit surprised to hear these things from a calvanist.

It is quite obvious to me the importance of STR to continue its drive to educate Christians everywhere. I encourage the STR staff to keep up the good work...you are obviously sorely needed and so is your ministry.

[Lora]

Claire,

Well thanks for saying so. I really think these basic distinctions will get Christians out of a lot of trouble in their own theology and especially in the public square.

--Lora

[Brad B]

Hi Lora, would you please define your use of the term "Christian"?

You call yourself a Calvinist yet argue a point that Calvin himself would not agree with. Namely that one can be saved apart from the Church. One translation of Calvins commentary on Romans has this to say:

"How shall they preach except they be sent? etc. He intimates that it is a proof and a pledge of divine love when any nation is favored with the preaching of the gospel; and that no one is a preacher of it, but he whom God has raised up in his special providence, and that hence there is no doubt but that he visits that nation to whom the gospel is proclaimed. But as Paul does not treat here of the lawful call of any one, it would be superfluous to speak at large on the subject. It is enough for us to bear this only in mind, that the gospel does not fall like rain from the clouds, but is brought by the hands of men wherever it is sent from above".

Do you intend to argue that God in His sovereignty in salvation is not also sovereign in His intended ends with sovereign means?

Brad B

[K.]

"Here’s Obama telling Falsani, 'The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they’re going to hell.' Falsani adds, 'Obama doesn’t believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell. But he’s not sure he’ll be going to heaven, either.' Again, that is contrary to what Evangelicals and most Catholics believe.

"Here’s Obama again: 'I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.'"

The above is from Cal Thomas' column dated June 11, 2008. Falsani is Cathleen Falsani, religion editor for the Chicago Sun-Times, who interviewed Obama for her book.

I have questions about Obama's faith, although I have no problem believing that Jimmy Carter is a believer.

[Heath Griner]

To sum up Sen. Obama's religious beliefs:
Because we don't know everything, then we can't know anything.
This, despite John 14:6, in which Jesus Christ makes it crystal clear that He is the only way to the Father.
What's confusing or muddy about what Jesus taught, Senator?

[Mike Westfall]

Not confusing or muddy, just politically inconvenient.

[Lora]

Brad B,

When I call myself a Calvinist I might as well call myself an Augustinian or even Pauline. I realize the term “Calvinist” is a bit anachronistic applied to Paul, but I think it’s a good framework to approach Paul with (and Christ for that matter).

Anyway, I don’t care a bit what Calvin himself said about this issue in terms of grounding my own belief in the matter. But, I will direct you to a place in the Westminster Confession (pretty Calvinist, huh?) where hope for those incapable of hearing the Gospel is granted:

“Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”

Perhaps the normal way God regenerates souls is by the preaching of the Word and the effectual call that quickens the soul. However, this is by no means his only way, as is suggested by the statement above.

--Lora

[Tom]

Can STR get back to apologetics? This polictical stuff is boring and you're not very good at it.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Lora,
I am not so much interested in your claims to Calvinism as I am in your take on what a Christian means by faith. What is your take on what it means to be a believer?

[Lora]

Louis Kuhelj,

As to what “faith” means, I think a bit of reflection would clear up a lot of confusion about this term. First, the object of “faith” in the Christian tradition is not a proposition. Many think of beliefs as mental states that stand in a relation of assent to certain propositions. What should be obvious to any reader of the New Testament is this is certainly NOT what “belief” means in the Bible. I think that is perfectly good way to think about how WE use the term “belief,” but that is not how Christ used the term.

How did he use the term, then? Well, the first thing to note is that the object of belief in the New Testament is a person. So, when Christ says roughly “He who believes in me has everlasting life but he who does not believe in me is condemned already” he certainly does not mean principally by “belief” mental states that stand in the relation of assent to certain orthodox propositions.

So, I think “belief” means something like “allegiance” or “trust.” To be a believer just means to a person of whom it is true that his allegiance is with Christ.

The question may now be posed, “Is it necessary to be saved to assent to the proposition ‘Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection atone for my sin by faith because he is both God and man’”? If we are to retain any hope for the salvation of persons who die in infancy and the salvation of the severely mentally handicapped, we must answer “No” to this question. If we really are going to claim that it is the case that only those who assent to the above proposition may be saved, then we cannot in the next breath go on and say, “Oh, but God will save some infants too.” That’s double-talk, and I’m surprised by the failure of most Christians to make the connection there. On the one hand, many espouse a stringent exclusivism which requires assent to something like the proposition above to be saved. But on the other hand, these very same people try and extend hope to dead infants. What I’m saying is that only by relaxing the former claim can we make room for infants in our hope for salvation.

--Lora

[Lora]

Louis,

I just read a sentence in my post that is a bit confusing. What I should have said at the beginning of the last paragraph was the following:

The question may now be posed, “Is it necessary for salvation to assent to the proposition ‘Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection atone for my sin by faith because he is both God and man’”?

--Lora

[SocietyVs]

“I think it's important to remember that the ultimate goal of Christianity is not to get us to do good things but to be reconciled to the one, true God” (Amy)

How do you figure? If your statement is true then one could be reconciled to God and commit any handful of atrocities – namely because they actually believe the correct things concerning God – or knowledge as you say (ie: Jesus is God, Jesus died for me, etc). Isn’t this true – if we are not concerned with good?

Even Hosea 6:6 mentions knowledge – but what kind of knowledge about God – “For I desire steadfast love” – that is an action based on the Torah/Law – Deut 6:4. Hosea is a prophet – and the prophets upheld the values of the Law. So the knowledge Hosea demanded was concerning the values of the law…namely love – and that knowledge could be gained from Torah study. Which is the same thing Jesus taught - even quoting this passage.

As for the good Hindu – if he is a person that follows Christ’s teachings than by all means he has to be on his way to heaven (as per Christian rules on this subject). I would state people that live good lives and do not seek to hurt others are following Jesus’ teachings – this same person taught us ‘treat others how you want to be treated’ – on that sentence hangs the Law and Prophets. Jesus was showing us anyone can do this – all they have to do is want to.

“in your closing remark you seem to imply that God has left us without clarity on the essentials such that you cannot confidently defend Jesus' divinity and have to worry about "going down the wrong path". It seems that you are concerned if the gospel isn't inclusivistic, we have to temper it. I may be misunderstanding you also, if so, please clarify.” (Brad)

I am not worried about going the wrong path – but with making a point more or less. The Trinity is in direct violation of ideas like the Shema and Commandment #1 for the 10 commandments – I know this much is true. I am saying the obvious – Christianity took a Jewish faith/belief system and basically worked some of the finer points around – so much so – tying Christianity to Jewish roots is fairly hard to do.

Why do I bring this up? Because we are discussing Obama’s vagueness on an issue in which I think he was just in saying – who knows who is going to heaven? I look at Christianity’s bastardizing of the Jewish faith and I can say quite cleanly – we have done the same in this faith – we have included ourselves into theirs. However, I know that Christianity has tried to distance itself from Judaism for a long time so Christianity does not even resemble anything Jewish (that’s what I mean by bastardization).

[SocietyVs]

I have to say - I really liked Lora's point in response to Kuhelj - great stuff!

[dewayneward]

"How do you figure? If your statement is true then one could be reconciled to God and commit any handful of atrocities – namely because they actually believe the correct things concerning God – or knowledge as you say (ie: Jesus is God, Jesus died for me, etc). Isn’t this true – if we are not concerned with good?"

Funny thing is that we still do. We have blown God's standard. Jesus came here to pay for all sin, past, present, and future. I still lie, cheat, commit adultary, drop "F" bombs, etc....and here is a shocker...SO DO YOU!!!! Remember not to judge your worthiness for heaven based on your requirements, but God's. He expects PERFECTION. Sin once and its all she wrote.

When you call someone an idiot/moron, etc. you have committed murder in your heart. Every looked at a woman with lust ...you've committed adultery.

We should be concerned with good, we SHOULD do good things, we SHOULDN'T do bad things. If we got that, then there would have been no need for JC to die on a cross.

ALL THAT IS REQUIRED TO GO TO HEAVEN IS TO BELIEVE THAT JESUS WAS WHO HE SAID HE WAS. That's it, nothing more. This is not lawlessness and "license to sin" as I have seen a lot of people try to claim. Yes, you could be a Hitler AFTER you believed in Christ and you still go to heaven. Your salvation is not dependent upon you, it is dependent upon Christ (Thank God or I-we would screw it up).

[Mike Westfall]

> ALL THAT IS REQUIRED TO GO TO
> HEAVEN IS TO BELIEVE THAT JESUS
> WAS WHO HE SAID HE WAS.

I'd like to point out that not even that is any easier to do than keeping the whole of the Law.

All that is required to go to heaven is God's Grace. There is absolutely nothing you need (or can) do for yourself (lest you should boast).

[Brad B]

Hi Lora, first, do you stand by what the Westminster Confession says since you took the time to quoted it?

Brad B

p.s. Even if you couldn't care a bit about what Calvin says, even though it highly likely the Westminster Catechism wouldn't be what it is with Calvin's influence. But since God saw fit to equip John Calvin in his time and place to be a primary part of the Reformation with the gifts he had been given to perform it, I think you might ought to care a little about what Calvin says. Especially if you even generally use the term Calvinism to identify yourself.

[Sam]

Brad, when people call themselves Calvinists, I don't think they mean they subscribe to every idea Calvin subscribed to. Usually, they are just referring to the five points of Calvinism.

[Lora]

Brad B,

I suppose I stand by most of what it says (I have read it), and a lot of what Calvin says (though not all). I don't think, however, that referring to myself as a "Calvinist" commits me to thinking Calvin is a reliable authority on all theological matters any more than me calling myself "Augustinian" commits me to thinking Augustine's opinions are reliable on the fate of unbaptized infants, the sacraments, the relation between the Church and the state, or whatever other issues he may have addressed. I think Augustine and Calvin were largely correct regarding human inability to choose God, God's effectual call, God's unconditional election, etc. That is all I mean by saying I'm a Calvinist.

--Lora

[Amy Hall]

Lora, thanks for the interesting conversation!

>>he certainly does not mean principally by “belief” mental states that stand in the relation of assent to certain orthodox propositions.

I agree with that up to a point. Yes, we have faith in a person. But the Bible most certainly talks about belief in certain propositions about that person. Without propositions about a person, how can you know Him? If you don't know He is just, and good, and righteous, you don't know Jesus. If you don't know He's Lord of the universe, you don't know Jesus. If you don't know He died on the cross for your sins, you don't know Jesus. If you don't know Jesus, you won't be saved. And the Bible does talk about the necessity of mental assent to some orthodox positions:

Rom 10:9-10--If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

A couple more on the necessity of faith in Jesus:

Rom 3:26--[The cross was] for the demonstration, I say, of [God's] righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Rom 3:21-22--But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe.

>>The question may now be posed, “Is it necessary to be saved to assent to the proposition ‘Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection atone for my sin by faith because he is both God and man’”? If we are to retain any hope for the salvation of persons who die in infancy and the salvation of the severely mentally handicapped, we must answer “No” to this question.

It seems you're approaching this in a backwards way. We should ask first what the text says and then think through what it is teaching us. If we begin by deciding what we want to find there, we'll be more likely to find a God in our own image rather than the true God. Personally, I think there is a difference between someone who is physically incapable of choosing God (infant, severely handicapped) and someone who rebels against God and rejects even the light he has been given (and Romans is very clear that everyone has rejected the knowledge of God that was available to them and all would be justly condemned, even those who never hear the gospel), so even if we're just going by reason, I don't think we can make conclusions about one group based on the other.

But could it be that God would save someone who is physically incapable of expressing faith in Him? Possibly. I'm not at all certain that all infants will be saved any more than I am that all people will be saved. "God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy." But we do know that those on whom God has mercy show this reality through their faith in Christ (see the verses above and more). If God changed the hearts of infants or the severely handicapped, how would we know He had done this if they couldn't communicate their faith to us? Therefore, it seems possible that God might save some, as He chooses (just as He chooses some from all people who will then show faith in Christ), even if we can't see the results. But I don't see any possibility left open in the Bible for those to be saved who are physically capable yet do not express faith in Jesus and His work on the cross.

If you're interested, Greg talks about this issue in Three Tough Questions. I love those talks, and you might find them helpful in at least understanding where the other side is coming from.

[Amy Hall]

SocietyVs,

>>How do you figure? If your statement is true then one could be reconciled to God and commit any handful of atrocities – namely because they actually believe the correct things concerning God

Not at all. The Bible is very clear that those who are truly reconciled to God are "new creations"--people who love God rather than live at enmity with Him, people who fight their sin and have the Holy Spirit giving them the power to do so:

Rom 8:1-14--Those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit…For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.... For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

>>As for the good Hindu – if he is a person that follows Christ’s teachings than by all means he has to be on his way to heaven (as per Christian rules on this subject).

The problem is that there are not Christian rules that must be followed in order to be on your way to heaven. (Though when you are on your way to heaven because of faith, you will begin to live out good things because of a changed heart and through the help of the Holy Spirit.) Take a look at those passages above that I quoted to Laura, particularly Rom 10:9-10. If someone who is a Hindu realizes he has "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" (Rom 1) and turns and follows those verses (i.e., he has faith in Christ), then he will be saved.

Romans 4 says this clearly: For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

In other words, if we got to heaven by following rules, we would all be doomed! Those rules only reveal our failures and lead to God's wrath. This is why God has decided our salvation would be by faith in Jesus and His work--so God could guarantee our salvation.

As for Christianity not being Jewish, when you get a chance, sit down for an hour or two and read straight through the book of Hebrews. That book ties all the pieces together very well and will help you see how all of Scripture is one, unified story.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Lora,

"So, I think “belief” means something like “allegiance” or “trust.” To be a believer just means to a person of whom it is true that his allegiance is with Christ. "

You "think"? How can someone who has a biblical faith not "know" what belief means in the context of salvation as taught in the New Testament?
Can you tell me how the faith that allows you to enter into heaven differs from other types of faith?

[Lora]

Amy Hall,

Thank you for the patience and time you’ve spent engaging these issues with me.

Some thoughts.

You’ve hinted in the direction of thinking that you cannot know a person without knowing propositions about that person. You ask, “Without propositions about a person, how can you know Him?” Now that seems like a question that warrants a talk by Greg called “The Fourth Tough Question.”

Well, the first thing I would like to suggest is that if it is the case that you can’t know Christ without knowing propositions about that person (and particularly the ones you listed), then for an infant to know Christ they would have to be equipped with mental states that stood in an assenting relation to those propositions. I myself find that wildly implausible. I tend to think infants have very few beliefs about the Incarnation, Atonement, sola fide, etc. Assuming they don’t have these beliefs, and assuming that even a single (no need to talk about the salvation of ALL infants) infant is saved today by God, then it follows immediately that it is not necessary to believe propositions about Christ to be saved by him. But let us be clear at this point—we cannot say on the one hand that we know that in the New Covenant it is necessary to believe propositions about Christ to be saved and then go on to pretend like we’re unsure about infants and pull the God’s-sovereignty-over-salvation card out of the blue (assuming infants believe no propositions about Christ). If we confidently believe that believing propositions about Christ is necessary to be saved by Christ, and if we confidently believe infants believe no propositions about Christ, we cannot go on to espouse all this uncertainty about what happens to them. We ought to follow our positions through, and just admit what they entail. And the position just describes entails the categorical damnation of infants.

Now, maybe the uncertainty about infants stems from an uncertainty about whether or not they have beliefs about propositions about Christ. Perhaps God really does secretly and miraculously grant them the beliefs in the propositions necessary for salvation. This, however, seems implausible to me, and completely ad hoc. I see little independent reason to believe this sort of thing happens, and so it strikes me as ad hoc (invented for the sole purpose of solving this single issue with no independent reason to believe it is true).

You say it is very clear that everyone has rejected God, but then you seem to think that infants might not qualify as persons who have rejected God, but only as persons who never really had the ability to believe in him. What I want to say here is that the stronger you are about how universal “everyone” is in that text in Romans, the less reason you have to think infants also don’t qualify as those who have rebelled against God. A great theological tradition in the West exists which says that from conception we are not only corrupt but also guilty, the proper objects of God’s wrath (Ps 51). If that’s the case, the case for privileging infants becomes weaker, and the question arises again, “Is it possible for God to save an infant who, like the rest of us, has rebelled against him in sin, though the infant believes no propositions about Christ?” If the answer is “No,” then God categorically damns infants (assuming they believe no propositions about Christ; surely they don’t, and at least there is no good reason to believe they do). That just seems to be the simple fact of the matter.

You are right that I am approaching these texts differently than you might. I begin thinking of them with all of this in my mind. I suppose it is at the level of methodology that there might be the biggest difference between us, though I admit I have no consistent and worked out methodology of interpreting scripture. And regarding the Scriptures you reference, Ro 3:26 clearly says God justifies those who have faith in him. The best thing I can say at the moment (I know it’s cheap and dirty) is just that it doesn’t follow from that that God does not justify some who do not have faith. That’s just a point of logic. The proposition “If you have faith, God will justify you” does not entail “If you do not have faith, God will not justify you.” The same may be said of the other passage.

I tend to doubt that when Paul wrote that he intended to communicate a necessary condition for salvation in all cases, including infants, anencephalic babies, those who have never heard, those faithful Jews who died four minutes after Christ’s resurrection before the message was communicated to them, etc. It’s a letter, not a systematic theology. So, extending his claim their to these bizarre cases seems entirely inappropriate to me. I really don’t think any infidelity to Scripture at all is involved in having a biblically informed hope for those in these categories. But as I’ve banged on and on about already, if we are to extend our hope to these categories, we may only do so by relaxing our interpretations of other parts of Scripture and getting rid of such stringent epistemic standards as preconditions for the salvation of all people.

--Lora

[SocietyVs]

Hey did I get screened on this blog? I wrote 2 comments back and they were deleted - why?

Anyways Brad B and Any i did respond to your comments - and questions asked to me but they were deleted apparently.