A Satire on the Modernist Distortion of Jesus’ Human Nature

Last updated on: June 3, 2017 at 5:23 pm By Dave Armstrong

. . . and Denigration of the Reliability of Holy Scripture

Photo by Gerd Altman [Pexels / CC0 public domain]

***

(11 January 2000)

***

The following is a satirical treatment of certain liberal theological tendencies in Christology and the study of Holy Scripture — somewhat in the style of C. S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters. In other words, what I write in the first section, I don’t really believe. It is the opposite of the theology of the Catholic Church (with which I agree). The idea is to reduce the heterodox view of Jesus Christ and the hyper-critical approach to Holy Scripture to foolishness, by utilizing a well-known technique of classical logic, called the argumentum ad absurdum. If the reader can bear with my deliberate satire and sarcasm, later I explain precisely what I meant: the very serious underlying point I am attempting to make. The words of my debate partner shall be in blue. I modified slightly his original statements in a few instances for dramatic effect; to make the point clearer. He does not necessarily accept the views I was critiquing.

* * * * *

The “agony in the garden” scene has several manifestations in the Gospels: In Luke it occurs on the Mount of olives; in Matthew it occurs at Gethsemane (probably the same exact place: “gethsemane” means oil press); in Mark, it is also Gethsemane; in John it is a garden, again in the Kidron valley and very likely Gethsamene. In the first three accounts there is no garden, but anguish and agony; in the last there is a garden but no agony [Lk.22:39-44; Mt.26:36-40; Mk.14:32-37; Jn.18:1-11].

Obviously the Bible writers contradict themselves, then. No doubt the contradictions were added to the Bible later by zealous Christians who anxiously awaited the arrival of the higher critics.

The witnesses and evangelists all deal variously with the nature of Jesus.

More contradictions, showing the “human nature” of the Scripture over against its Divine (Inspired) Nature. But of course God wanted the human element to be in the forefront.

This is good scriptural evidence for the fully human nature within the hypostatic union. We must connect with Jesus here in a visceral way. He is suffering and agonizing to the point of death. There is little to suggest that these accounts are unhistorical; this happened.

Yes, but we can’t trust these accounts, because they were added later in order to emphasize Jesus’ humanity. We must accept only the passages stressing Christ’s divinity as authentic, deriving from the Petrine “Q” etc.

And it is totally absent from John. Why? Is John a bad historian? Does he deny the humanity of Jesus?

Naw; if he could just be left on his own without all these darned later additions, he would have done a fine job . . .

Suffice it to say that John’s goal is different from the Synoptic. Whereas the latter seek to show us the essence of human suffering of abandonment and betrayal, the former seeks to show the Divine in hypostatic union with the human.

There you go again! Can’t you see that this is a proof of later additions? Otherwise, John would ignore the humanity of Jesus and stick to the Divine . . .

The synoptics show us a Jesus struggling with his fate, petitioning God; John shows us a Jesus, not struggling but sedate in knowledge of victory, in control of all events, demanding their unfolding. Are these two different Jesuses?

Yes (now you’re beginning to catch on!). We know that when the Bible talks about the Divinity of Jesus (i.e., Monophysitism), it is inspired; when it discusses His humanity, these are later gratuitous additions, put in by zealous Chalcedonian or Nestorian scribes who wanted to corrupt the historical portrayal of Jesus with their own Greek mysticism and preconceived notions . . .

At Chalcedon these issues were resolved in a very Greek and mystical way; this is how we understand Jesus today.

Gee, what a shame, eh? Too bad these infallible councils were chained to an outmoded way of thinking. If only the higher critics had been there! They would have avoided these pitfalls . . .

There are scholars who would argue that references to this or that were added before this or that event. That may indeed be the case.

Of course it is the case! Haven’t you read what I just wrote yet? Don’t question the higher critics! They are clearly inspired, and we must place more credence in their judgments than in the Tradition of the Church or supposedly “inspired,” “infallible” Scripture, whenever there is a conflict. C’mon, wake up man!

How the gospels came to be written is certainly important stuff on some levels of discussion. Not this level.

Yeah; leave it to the esoteric, Ivory Tower higher critics. How could us mere mortals ever hope to grasp this?

One can never go wrong, however, working from the belief that the Gospels are given by God through the work of human hands.

No! NO! NO! The Bible came down from heaven in the King James Version. What are you, a liberal? Human intervention???!!! That would mean the Bible was possessed of original sin. We need a higher critic to come on this list . . . no doubt about it.

Some will view this last sentence as “loaded;” it is. I believe God wants us to see our Gospels as the true testament to the Lord. Let me assure you that [a liberal Scripture scholar] has no aversion to miracles and believes in the bodily Resurrecton.

Oh, of course he is completely orthodox. Higher critics always are, for the simple reason that they merely create their own orthodoxy, at their whim and fancy. So, e.g., Jesus knowing the future? Obviously this is a later addition. See how simple it is?

[Name] has persuasively argued that Jesus’ human intellect (apart from His Divine intellect) develops and His knowledge of future events in His human nature is limited.

Of course he is right! Who could doubt that Jesus didn’t know the future! This is a no-brainer. Everyone knows that the “Jesus” of the Bible is a mythical figure, created by the power-hungry censorious “fathers” of the conservative, repressed, patriarchal, anti-sex medieval Church . . .

[The great liberal Scripture scholar says]: “Even in regards to Jesus’ predictions of his own death, one cannot simplistically read these as actual statements during his ministry.”

Yes, yes, of course! No need to tell us this! It’s clear that only a naive simpleton could actually gullibly take the Bible at face value. It is much more complex than that. I keep saying it, but again, THANK GOD FOR THE HIGHER CRITICS! We would be so lost and brainwashed without them . . . like sheep without a shepherd.

Can one read these as “actual statements during his ministry?” It matters how one reads them.

Oh yes . . . the crucial need for the death by a thousand qualifications. Ah, the beauty of theological liberalism . . .

If one reads them for spiritual nourishment and to be in communion with the Word, then of course you could, and should read them exactly this way (I do).

What???!!!! You have fallen for the line, too? I’m shocked!

If one reads them theologically, a more scientific, analytical appproach is required; but this doesn’t negate the validity of the first method.

Well, then the magisterium has to go when it contradicts the Higher Critics! After all, the Church has stated that the Bible is infallible and inspired, but we all know that is malarkey . . .

The knowledge of whether or not Jesus knew he was God has no real bearing on the Gospel narratives. That knowledge is not the point of the evangelists nor is it a question for me.

Brilliant!!!! This is why we know the narratives about Jesus knowing His future were added in later. We know this because the higher critics have informed us, and because it fits in with our own solo mio position of biblical interpretation. You have a lot of insight on how Sacred Scripture ought to be read! Let’s stick to the Nestorian Jesus which the gospel writers obviously want to give us. Albert Schweitzer had his “historical Jesus”; we have our “Nestorian Jesus.” Let us rest and be content with that.

It’s no accident that in John’s gospel the oil press is a garden and there is no agony. That’s not the picture of Jesus given here! Here is the Logos, fully in control of every event. John’s Jesus doesn’t merely predict his violent end: he wills it.

Obviously, one can’t will to suffer, or agonize over what one wills, so we must conclude that most of John is a later interpolation, because the end result is theological orthodoxy (therefore unacceptable and obviously not inspired Scripture).

For John the event in the valley of Kidron is transformed into heroic prose; Jesus seems very much in touch with his other, divine self. This is why John does not portray agony: that would have shown Jesus’ divine nature in an impossible predicament for the Logos.

Atta boy! — this is a brilliant exposition of “either/or” reasoning. Every Enlightenment rationalist would be extremely proud of you.

It is theologically problematic to conflate the Synoptic “Gethsemane” with John’s “garden,” for an ungenuine Jesus would emerge, one not intended by any of the evangelists.

Exactly! We mustn’t trust Scripture at face value — this is just one more nail in that coffin . . . Thank God for higher critics who can demythologize this so-called “Jesus” of the Scripture and give us the real one — er, One. What a great age we live in! Such enlightenment, never heretofore known . . . Let us give thanks and humbly accept our superior theological overlords, and pray that the magisterium will one day come to its senses. I go with the Higher Critics, whenever their view conflicts with Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition (so-called). I’ve seen more than enough to know that they are infallible, and not just when they write ex cathedra . . .

[NOTE: (just to again make sure people understand what I was doing above): the foregoing — i.e., my writing, which was in black — was ironical, tongue-in-cheek farce, and the argumentum ad absurdum approach to logical fallacies. I am not saying that my debate partner espouses all or even a few of the errors I trash here, but in my opinion he is undoubtedly influenced by some of them. My goal here is to show the logical outcome of such thinking, by use of parody, sarcasm, and turning the tables. If my meaning was difficult to follow in places, it may help to read the above again, keeping this “note” always in mind. From this point on, I again assume a “serious” apologetic posture and express and clarify my actual views.]

I knew it was just a matter of time before your Celtic wit exploded on the list! It seems you have an advanced degree from the Jonathan Swift School of Theological Criticism and Interpersonal Relations :-).

LOLOLOL Sarcasm is a lost art, and one not rarely used in apologetics, as many people deem it ethically unacceptable altogether. Yet Jesus and Paul used it; Chesterton and Muggeridge were masters at it, and even Newman on occasion (notably in his Apologia pro vita Sua). Glad you appreciated it. :-)

I will try to comb out the Swiftian rhetoric and address your real concerns about my approach to reading Scripture. Under that Irish wit is a real wisdom worth speaking to.

Well thanks! I’m glad, too, that you understand that all good satire is at bottom dead-serious (as indeed mine was).

Beneath this sarcasm is a “concern” (in quotes because I know you’re rock-solid in your beliefs about scripture) about the possibility of the evangelists contradicting one another. What you characterize as contradiction I would characterize as diversity.

By definition, diversity is different than contradiction. The writers either contradict each other or not. Of course there are numerous exegetical difficulties, but if one approaches them with hostile critical presuppositions from the outset, the chances of plausibly resolving them diminish.

I claim that the evangelists have a view of Jesus, inspired by the Spirit, that emphasizes different aspects of the personality and nature of Jesus. These views are diverse; they do not contradict one another in any pneumatological or fiduciary manner.

Good (I think). Do they contradict each other in any logical manner? :-) I accept the complementarity of the gospel accounts, and the additional data of Paul, etc. No problem there.

They can be reconciled with one another, but not conflated to draw a picture of a single, “composite” Jesus.

This, to me, sounds like modernism. Please correct me if I am wrong.

There’s probably an excellent point in here somewhere. You seem to want to draw the analogy between the fully human, fully divine Christ, and the text of scripture. I’ve often sensed this analogy myself.

One of my points throughout was that I felt you were emphasizing the Human Nature of Christ too highly over against His Divine Nature, whereas I suspect you think I am doing the opposite. So I argued ironically, and yes, I was making a vague analogy to Scripture, since it is divinely-inspired, yet transmitted by human beings (albeit inspired by the Spirit) and subjected to the very human process of canonization. The orthodox view is that Jesus had both Natures: we mustn’t minimize either; and that Scripture is wholly inspired and infallible (I’m not saying there are no numerical-type minor errors, etc. — I believe the Church would allow for those, and I do myself — but not any doctrinal error in what it affirms).

Dave, you have stated elsewhere that the human nature of Christ does not mitigate His divine nature. I would add the obvious corollary, that His divine nature does not mitigate His human nature.

Of course not; yet He knew the future, both from His Divine Nature, and (according to what I have read) infused knowledge even in His Human Nature. Your assumption that He did not is the heterodox one, and the one which needs to be established and proven. My simple challenge to you is (please pay close attention: this was the main point of my satire/farce):

1. Why do you accept this notion that passages where Jesus foretells the future are not authentic utterances of Jesus?
2. By what criteria do you determine what is authentic and what is not?
3. How does this bear on the inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture?
4. What do you do if your pet theologians conflict with the magisterium?
5. Do you yield and submit, or stand your ground and assert that the Church is flat-out wrong and theologian “fashionable Mr. X” is right?

What does ‘later’ mean in the context you use the word? What does ‘addition’ mean? Are you implying that the Apostolic witnesses kept a diary or notebook and referred to it after the Resurrection when “writing” the Gospels? And then, after their deaths, Christian apologists and redactionists edited and added stuff for theological expediency :-)?

I think you can figure out from context (despite all my farcical sarcasm) that I was referring primarily to this business of “inauthentic sayings” of Jesus. In other words, the “later additions” would be those things which indeed are not authentically part of Jesus’ teaching, but added in later by zealous Churchmen seeking to uphold some view in opposition to the real oral Tradition as received and passed down by the Apostles. This is the standard liberal charge.

Wit and wisdom aside Dave, you do not like those whom you’ve labeled “higher critics” do you? :-)

No (glad you figured that out :-). Not (pay close attention) when they apply hostile presuppositions to Holy Scripture and set themselves up as autonomous authorities against Holy Mother Church. I see that you called me a “fundamentalist” in another post. That is a dead give-away and buzzword of modernism. I’m always proud to be called that, if it comes from a modernist. So in my opinion that bodes ill for your ultimate position, if this is how you characterize my position, which I would simply call “orthodox.”

How about a little serious stuff, now?

I hope I have clarified my position sufficiently, and given you the “official” interpretation of my Screwtape-like farce.

I think you’ll find that, while I am indeed influenced by some contemporary theologians and scholars, I am a fairly independent thinker, and quite open-minded,

Yes, but there is independent, and there is independent, if you know what I mean. And there is a type of open-mindedness where (as Chesterton said), one’s brains can fall out. So these vague, almost psycho-babble, “PC” terms must always be carefully defined these days.

You will soon learn that I’m really “all over the place” and do not embrace any one approach to theology.

But what about doctrine and dogma? Do you accept the Church’s dogmas in toto or not?

So long as we remain faithful to the Magisterium, what could go wrong?

Well, that would seem to answer that question, yet I have seen a few things, at least, where you seem to defy the magisterium (Christ’s lack of knowledge; Mary’s concupiscence, the authorship of the Gospels). Concerning the latter, Dei Verbum from Vatican II (V, 18) clearly identifies the four authors, citing St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies in the footnote (III,2,8; cf. III,1,1). Irenaeus clearly states that these four were the authors. So here is an opportunity for you: do you accept the word of this Church Father (d.c. 202), regarding authentic Tradition, or do you rather opt for the opinions of the Higher Critics? It is the received Catholic Tradition (as far as I can tell) that the authors of the four Gospels were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Fr. John Hardon, e.g., assumes this (Pocket Catholic Dictionary); one of my commentaries assumes it without question. I think it would be easy to locate relevant statements in papal encyclicals and ecumenical councils.

Salvation and Judgment: Reflections on Sufficient Knowledge

Last updated on: June 3, 2017 at 5:33 pm By Dave Armstrong

The Last Judgment, by Hans Memling (c. 1433-1494) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

(7 June 2002: from prior papers)

***

It is quite morally reasonable to assume that God would give every person enough knowledge and revelation of Himself, thus ample opportunity, to repent. Romans 1:18-32 and 2:12-16 would seem to make that clear. Romans 1:20 is a general statement, applying to all people. In other words all people know there is a God, through creation (cf. Job 12:7-9; Ps 19:1-6; Jer 5:21-24). Romans 1:19 says it is plain to the wicked as well. So all know that God exists, but some wickedly suppress what they know to be true (1:18,21,25,28,32). The truth of God and the moral law is known intrinsically by humans, but it is suppressed.

Also, passages about sudden death seem to me to imply that judgment follows, with no further chance of salvation: e.g., “Thou fool! This very night thy soul is required of thee!” or, “The Son of Man will come as a thief in the night” (i.e., some people will be unprepared). Many people never hear the gospel preached, but I do think that God gives sufficient knowledge and grace for all to know Him and to repent.

The ones who haven’t heard the gospel still know enough — simply by being made in God’s image, conscience, etc. — to possibly be saved. No one will have any excuse on Judgment Day, whether they heard the Christian gospel or not, because the law is “written on their hearts.” Scripture teaches that sufficient grace is available for all regardless of circumstances of time, place, and other variables. The damned reject what they know. They are not merely ignorant of what they could have known, given a different, more fortunate circumstance. This is the biblical position.

++++++++++

Purgatory offers an aspect of further grace after death, but it is not a second chance. Whoever goes there is already “saved” in the sense that they are destined for heaven. Purgatory is the anteroom to heaven; not a fire escape from hell. It is not a “minimum security” hell, but rather, a beastly and uncomfortable “hot room” of the heavenly mansion. Even so, there are more pleasures to be had there than on earth. One is much closer to God there.

++++++++++

The law is already on everyone’s heart. If a further chance for salvation after death existed (as some theological liberals claim), why the biblical warnings about sudden death? I would say the nonexistence of a second chance after death is presupposed in, e.g., the parables of the wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-14) and the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). This is even more evident in the parable of the ten bridesmaids (Matthew 25:1-13), where the damned persons in the parable went to Jesus (i.e., after the 2nd coming: 25:6,10), but the “door was shut.” It was already too late. Jesus did not “know” them (25:12). So the moral of that story is:

Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour. (Matt 25:12; NRSV)

All of this makes little sense on the assumption that there exists another chance for salvation after death. Note that they are described as “foolish,” not merely ignorant. They obviously knew about the bridegroom. This is all harmonious with Romans 1:18-32. Hebrews 9:27 is clear anyway:

. . . it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment. (NRSV)

Furthermore, there is another frightening passage where Jesus discusses the coming of the Kingdom: Luke 17:20-37 (cf. Matt 24:26-28,37-44; Mk 13:32-37; Lk 21:34-36). He makes analogies to the Second Coming, which is alluded to in 17:24 and 17:30. “In the days of Noah” men were “eating and drinking, and marrying . . .” until “the flood came and destroyed all of them.” (17:26-27). They did have a hundred years or so to listen to old man Noah, but then that was all in this life, not the next. They rejected his counsel, and were judged and killed, and this is later compared to being thrown into hell, as I will explain shortly.

Then Jesus compares Sodom to those who will be alive at the time of the Second Coming. They were “eating and drinking, buying and selling,” etc. (17:28). Then “it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed all of them” (17:29). Jesus says that’s how it will be when He returns (17:30). Our Lord urges vigilance and preparation in order to avoid damnation and judgment (17:31-33). Then the climax: He proceeds to explain that “on that night [when the Son of Man returns] there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left” (17:34). He reiterates the point in 17:35. This is our warning of (sudden) judgment, as compared to the situations before the flood and the destruction of Sodom. The disciples ask Jesus where the persons who are “taken” go. He answers:

. . . Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. (17:37)

Now, apparently it is variously interpreted by commentators, but it seems to me that Jesus is here referring to hell, specifically Gehenna, which was His own word-picture for hell. Gehenna (from valley of Hinnom) was the garbage-heap of Jerusalem, outside the city walls. Much evil had previously taken place there (false idols, child sacrifice, pagan ceremonies, etc.). Gehenna/hell is described by Jesus in Mark 9:48 as a place “where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched” (cf. Isa 14:11). Dead bodies of executed criminals used to be cast into Gehenna (see, e.g., Jer 31:40). Worms used to feed upon the bodies, and fires were kept burning, for obvious reasons. In Isaiah 66:24, we read:

And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.

Interestingly, the latter statement is also in the context of the Second Coming of Christ, as indicated by Isaiah 66:15-16,22. The conclusion I draw, therefore, is this: Jesus is showing how judgment is very sudden. There will be no time to repent, and judgment will be swift. Physical death is clearly analogous to spiritual death in these passages. No second chance for salvation is even remotely implied. If we had such a further hope as this, the Bible would explicitly mention it somewhere.

++++++++++

What is truly callous is a view which lets people do whatever they want, until they stand before God and “make it right” when all the cards are on the table. They had more than enough time while on earth. God reveals Himself to all who seek Him. Someone who willfully rejects God all their life will not accept Him once they meet Him face to face, except out of a desire to save their own skin. Human rebellion and wickedness is often greatly underestimated. Self-preservation is not a good enough reason for God to save someone. There must be real repentance, and an acceptance of salvation as a free gift, and a true desire to follow God. Jesus taught (recounting Abraham’s words) that if people didn’t believe Moses and the Prophets, they wouldn’t believe even if someone were to rise from the dead (Lk 16:27-31). This is sheer rebellion, not mere ignorance.

++++++++++

Hell is the equivalent of a son — properly raised and loved — going out and joining the Mafia or KKK and totally rejecting his upbringing. His parents love him but alas, he goes further astray with each passing day. They reach out — he spurns them repeatedly. Now whose fault is that? Is this lifestyle choice by the son directly attributable to a lack of love from the parents? God didn’t make robots. He made free agents whom He will allow even to reject Him if they so choose. If that free will is real and not just illusory, then hell is inevitable. There has to be a place reserved for people who want nothing to do with God. Free will makes both evil and hell inevitable. God has the power over life and death, and He is Judge. “The Lord giveth; the Lord taketh away.” (Job, who understood this very well). All people know there is a God, through creation (cf. Job 12:7-9; Ps 19:1-6; Jer 5:21-24). Romans 1:19 says it is plain to the wicked as well. So all know that God exists.

When Hitler or Stalin stand before God, they will be forced to explain themselves and their evil actions. They will be made to know beyond any doubt, beyond any of man’s foolish rationalizations, delusions, blame-shifting, and excuses, that their penalty is just; that they chose it of their own free will, and that God respects free will so much that he will let them spend eternity without Him. In a realm where God is not, there is undescribable evil. That is all that is necessary to explain the existence and nature of hell. It is not God’s fault at all. Rather, it is Satan and man which have created the aberration of hell.

++++++++++

In the Catholic view, salvation is a process of continual growth. Righteousness (and sanctification) is an acquired habit, which we must cultivate, guard and “pamper” — all due to the enabling power of God’s grace. Everyone makes a choice at every moment of the day to follow the path of righteousness or the path of death and destruction. Choices become habits; habits form character. Someone who gives little thought to God all during their life is not likely at all to accept God, even after death. They have coddled and babied their rebellion and wickedness throughout their life. Many have concluded that God is evil, and are willing to say that to His face when they meet Him. I have heard people say this, many times. What folly man commits! This is what Malcolm Muggeridge (in his inimitable manner) called “unresisting imbecility” or “fathomless incredulity.”

This psychological/spiritual dynamic is amply verified by the treatment of Jesus. The truly humble and repentant ones instinctively understood who He was, or at least that they should follow His teachings and He Himself. Those who were prideful and trusting in their own works or the fact of their Jewishness to save themselves (Pelagianism) rejected Him, no matter what He did. When He performed miracles, they simply said He had a demon, and performed miracles by the power of Beelzebub. They saw Him as a threat to their political and ecclesiastical power, and so trumped up charges to dispose of Him (as John the Baptist was also treated).

This is similar to our rationalizations by which we pretend that God doesn’t exist, so that He doesn’t mess up our lives. Finally, even His Resurrection didn’t move these people at all (as He had predicted: Luke 16:31). They immediately adopted a ludicrous view that the disciples stole the body. It’s obvious that human rebelliousness knows no bounds. Yet some people simplistically assume that once such a person dies they will immediately repent. Such a “repentance” is likely only the self-preservation instinct and not true contrition. I can conceive of a situation in which God does offer one last chance right before He commences judgment, but the Bible doesn’t reveal it that way, and the Church has never held such a view. In any event, I think people’s minds and wills are already made up by the time they die — by virtue of the life choices they have made.

++++++++++

God is Judge, and He is holy. He has the prerogative to judge His creatures, who have rebelled against Him and rejected His infinite love and mercy. I don’t know why this is so hard for so many to comprehend. It all follows as soon as free will is accepted. People want to blame God (or, in effect, change His nature to fit the image they have of what God should be like); I put the blame squarely on man. It is a fundamentally different approach. I accept God’s Revelation and His self-description on their own terms; those who reject the biblical revelation try to judge God and His teachings recorded there by a moral sense which was given to them by God in the first place. The stream can’t rise higher than the Source . . . Without a moral and loving God (“God is love”) there can be no absolute and binding standard of morality in the first place.

++++++++++

As to people’s knowledge of God’s character and mercy: all men have enough knowledge to choose to follow and adore God, but some men are granted extra knowledge. And some choose not to accept what is self-evident. This necessarily follows in a fallen world, in which much unfairness exists. And it is always ultimately a great mystery why some are saved and others are not.

++++++++++

It is folly for us to try to perceive God as if He is limited in knowledge and in time, like ourselves. He is not. God is all-loving, all-holy, and all-knowing. He knows what people would have done, given the chance, and I believe He incorporates that into His Final Judgment of each individual, just as I believe this is particularly true for infants (e.g., those slaughtered in their mother’s wombs). God looks at the heart. We look at outward appearances. God is not arbitrary and petulant. A far different God is revealed in Scripture, history, and in our own individual experiences of His ever-present mercy and forgiveness.

All false beliefs come from below, and we allow ourselves to be deceived by the Evil One to a far greater degree than we are aware. All of us no doubt have sincere, false beliefs at this very moment. But there is an underlying spiritual battle to which Romans 1 refers. I believe that all individuals can arrive at spiritual truth if they just seek it wholeheartedly, and that this (necessarily) derives from the same grace which makes our salvation possible, because God is Knowledge as well as Love. Truth and salvation go hand in hand.

++++++++++

God distributes His grace sufficiently for all, despite differential circumstances and willingness to receive and act upon it. And God “evens things out” by taking into account the individual’s circumstances and environment, which affect both his judgment and culpability. Middle Knowledge allows God to know what people would have done, and I believe He acts accordingly, where the salvation of individuals is concerned.

“Equal opportunity salvation” is grounded in God’s sufficient grace for all, universal atonement, and God’s recognition of the unfair burdens and deficiencies that many of us labor under, through no fault of our own (without undermining man’s profound and willful rebellion and wickedness at all). God knows everything, including future conditionals, and this makes His final judgment fair and just and loving, whether or not we fully comprehend it. I submit that we will one day, as we will be given extraordinary knowledge in heaven. We will have all of eternity to ponder these questions and God’s ineffable character and Providence which trouble many people so much now.