[jayceeii]

CR: If someone knows Jesus and commits himself to Jesus, then that person will be saved.

If someone commits himself to unconditional love, then he has known Jesus and committed himself to Jesus.

So, if someone commits himself to unconditional love, then he will be saved (1, 2 hypothetical syllogism)

JC: Your point is that committing oneself to unconditional love is a sufficient interpretation of knowing the Lord. How would you submit to objective testing in this regard? Were there a long line of people, would you say, “I love you,” as each one passes, the way that Amma the hugging saint is doing? I myself am an advocate of universal love, but not unconditional love. Universal love allows that love would flow to the individuals, but does not enforce it indiscriminately, instead looking at the attributes.

CR: A practitioner of a non-Christian religion can commit himself to unconditional love.

So, a practitioner of a non-Christian religion can be saved. (3, 4)

JC: Amma is obviously a case in point, as a Hindu. But I would say there is a world of difference between unconditional love, which is blind, and universal love, which sees. Unconditional love would seem to presume a relationship exists or can be cultivated, but universal love admits in some cases a fruitful relationship is not possible. The moment you start to love someone who has universal love, that love is returned, but not until then.

In your theories your love, or Amma’s love, would immediately draw down God’s love. But God looks and finds the heart actually dislikes His ways and is disturbed by His presence, so He knows there can be no relationship until the person learns to see nobility. A blank grasping is not genuine love. You have to cease controlling, and value objective goodness. Unconditional love is a false gateway. But, could you actually prove yourself capable of loving a noble other, a prophet could come and introduce himself to you safely. Since I find the prophets are nowhere received, I guess unconditional love is false.

CR: C.S Lewis seems to affirm a sentiment similar to this, though most likely much more complex and sound, in many of his works. Those works include Narnia the Last Battle, Mere Christianity, and many more.

Narnia the Last Battle is the one that initially sparked this idea that quickly shaped into a belief for me when the character Emeth, who throughout the novel had been living out the values of Aslan but under a different name, is permitted into heaven even after never explicitly worshiping Aslan by his name.

JC: Everyone presumes Heaven will be a place that they like, not one that they would hate. Nonetheless we do not find Christianity or any other religions attempting to set up a form of heaven on Earth, which is what people would immediately do if they truly wanted it. Somehow heaven is conceived as funneling into everyone’s private desires. If you truly had unconditional love you’d want to spend your days with those thinking similarly, rather than remaining a cog in the secular society, going to church on Sundays.

CR: This made me further inspect some scripture that I had previously possibly misinterpreted like John 3:16, John 14:6, Romans 6:23.

John 3:16 speaks of how if you believe in Jesus you will be saved but I had always read it as if and ONLY if you believe in Jesus will you be saved. It does not say if you do NOT believe in Jesus you will NOT be saved. This is something I never contemplated but I feel starts to break down the certain scripture I thought opposed my belief.

JC: John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

It is not an if and only if construction. You’re right semantically, the sentence suggests belief in Jesus will mean one does not perish (though this is never defined in scripture), but would allow other mechanisms. If you want to say good people in every religion are going to receive God’s benediction, this could also be what Jesus meant by “the meek inheriting the Earth.” There are millions of people thinking like this today, and many of them claiming unconditional love. But I don’t see them actually liking one another and therefore spending all their days together, instead they dwell in isolation and competition.

CR: There is a similar sentiment in John 14:6 that my professor made evident to me. The scripture says nobody comes to the father except through Jesus but it does not say that nobody enters heaven through the explicit belief in Jesus. One may be saved by Jesus’s death and resurrection without knowing it, at least not until the day of judgment when it is made clear to them.

JC: John 14:6: “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”

So you are putting the Buddha and Krishna, for instance, on the shoulders of Jesus? That Jesus did the real deed but would allow the rest to tag along? The preponderance of Christians on the globe might suggest this, but these ratios may change as centuries pass. You are certainly flattering Jesus by this conception, but are you sure you aren’t being influenced by the crowd? Maybe Buddha and Krishna have equal weight, where are you then? Indeed Hinduism proclaims the same God appeared as all of these, so take your pick. Then Buddha would be saying too, “No one goes to the Father, but through me.” And unless someone could identify the same God in both places, he wouldn’t be saved.

Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Then we’d be saying whatever gifts God brings were presented in Buddha and Krishna too. Eknath Easwaran might have agreed to this, since he encouraged his students to meditate on a wide variety of inspiring world scripture. Then again, I doubt he was qualified to recognize the Lord originally. In fact I have been rather certain about this.

CR: You can also look at Revelations 20:12-13 “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done.” The actions of man are what is judged not the names uttered in prayer.

JC: You’re grasping at straws, arguing against Christians here. The verses can also be considered to have a general tenor that Jesus is the only visit from God to man. Buddha and Krishna appeared earlier but there are few hints about it, except perhaps Jesus saying He had sheep in other pastures. I’m not sure how you are transitioning your argument from unconditional love to good actions. You haven’t listed the actions of unconditional love. For instance one might imagine a campaign to eliminate poverty at your expense. If you really love the rest you’ll want them to have the essentials of life, which are essential for joy. If you take more money than them, you can’t be said to be treating them lovingly.

CR: This idea of Jesus being more than a name or man but a representation of love really helped me with those issues I had with the scripture.

JC: Jesus said people should try to love one another as He loves them, but He didn’t say it would be easy to practice, or even easy to understand. If you think of Jesus as the Creator then it should be obvious He wants all to live in joy, which would mean cooperation instead of competition that leaves some in poverty and its associated relative misery. So, where are the cooperative churches? I see only the Hutterites actually living this out, to the best of human capacities. Among the Hutterites, money does not separate the people.

If you are really full of unconditional love then you should be in one of these places that supports joy for all without denying joy to some. If you are not, you likely find these remarks disturbing, and your unconditional love wavers in my instance. But if you have unconditional love, then you love every member of the forum equally, and should be able to have lasting companionship with them. So keep proving it and see if Jesus finds you.

CR: In Mere Christianity C.S Lewis talks about how there are “people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points” (Lewis 10.1).

JC: The idea has been around a long time. Many Hindus accept Jesus too, only not exclusively. You must admit things might be interesting, if the real test of knowing Jesus would be to identify Him although He appears in different bodies. Christianity almost has this as part of its doctrine. It states that God can take on a human body. One would think it would be rational to suppose if God has this ability He’d want to do so more than once. This also falls into line with Jesus’ remark that as you do unto the least of these, so is it done unto Him. He might have known Christians seeing a crowd would identify Him as least likely to be the Lord. But Jesus might not be interested in being found in this way.

CR: This quote I believe further supports the idea of religious people committed to other religions still being led to salvation in their own way.

JC: The world is quick on asking for salvation but slow on asking what it is. It kind of suggests, if they’re not ready to ask what it is, that they’re not ready for it whatever it is.

CR: Hoping to continue to adjust and revise this as time goes on so please let me know what you disagree with or think should be changed. Have a good one yall!

JC: I’d reiterate that you are making a claim to love all at the forum, or anywhere on Earth, unconditionally. This phrase must be how you’ve decided to express this love here. I wish you’d point me to a place then, where there is genuine love found between people. The Christians say they have it but only the Hutterites are securing the foundations of life. If there is love there should be joy, so your heart must be full of joy that you’ll share.

[Sophia]

This is a response to the first original post by Carson.

This question of divine hiddenness is one that I struggle with most in my faith. I find J.L Schellenberg’s argument difficult to counter, it is as follows:

1. If there is a perfectly loving god, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God are in a position to participate in such relationships (able to do so just by trying to).

2. No one can be in a position to participate in such relationships without believing that God exists.

3. If there is a perfectly loving God All Creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationships with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists. (1, 2 HS)

4. It is not the case that all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists. (there is nonresistant nonbelief).

5. It is not the case that there is a perfectly loving God. (3, 4 MT)

6. If God exists, God is perfectly loving.

7. It is not the case that God exists. (5, 6 MT)

It seems that the argument you provided…:

1. If someone knows Jesus and commits himself to Jesus, then that person will be saved.

2. If someone commits himself to unconditional love, then he has known Jesus and committed himself to Jesus.

3. So, if someone commits himself to unconditional love, then he will be saved (1, 2 hypothetical syllogism)

4. A practitioner of a non-Christian religion can commit himself to unconditional love.

5. So, a practitioner of a non-Christian religion can be saved. (3, 4 MP)

…is an objection to premise (2) of Schellenberg’s argument. You are arguing that a person can participate in a relationship without believing that God exists or even hearing their name. The quote you gave from C.S Lewis gave me more comfort in the fact that God is still perfectly loving through directing people in other religions to the parts of their religion that are in agreement with Christianity. A concern I have though is that couldn’t it be said that some people not having access to all the points in Christianity is kind of like a random inequality imposed by God? Wouldn’t the chances of salvation be higher for the Christian compared to someone who has never heard God’s name?

[jayceeii]

SP:

1. If there is a perfectly loving god, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God are in a position to participate in such relationships (able to do so just by trying to).

JC:

I find this argument fascinating, but would introduce a counter proposition, that only the angels are capable of an explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God. For instance I’d expect to see worldwide harmony in a situation where all could enter a relationship with God, which is to say I’d expect to see living proofs that humans can enter explicit and positively meaningful relationships with one another, before they claim they have done so regarding God! But I’d understand it if only certain churches could achieve perfect harmony in their ranks, in case there were subsets in the human class. Since poverty exists in every church except the Hutterites, I’d have to say they are not achieving perfect harmony, a.k.a. loving their neighbor as themselves, hence not proving they can enter explicit and positively meaningful relationships in society apart from God.

The argument presumes there is one step from man to God, that man can take while denying his fellow man, for instance through economic oppression whereby some are rich leaving others poor. But I’d think the first thing God would ask were there such a step, is that the men go back and befriend their fellows, even if it is limited to one church.

SP:

2. No one can be in a position to participate in such relationships without believing that God exists.

JC:

Belief in God’s existence is a ridiculously low standard for a relationship, particularly when the term “God” remains defined only in the mind of the believer, not objectively. That the argument turns this direction already shows it is an insufficient argument, since although 1. claims to speak of a relationship being possible, 2. completely ignores this as a non sequitur. Belief in God’s existence is not the first step in a relationship until God is defined according to the traits that must be actively seen in a relationship, for instance selflessness and a universal love that would banish poverty, could humans comprehend it.

SP:

3. If there is a perfectly loving God All Creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationships with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists. (1, 2 HS)

JC:

I’d repeat the hypothesis that only angels may be in this set of Creatures. Also if angels descend to Earth, as the Bible suggests regarding the “fallen,” they might “freely shut themselves off from God” and appear as atheists. Perhaps it is too painful for them to think about God, having been cast down, for instance. Or perhaps it is inconvenient. Anyway the doctrine would fail for humans if they are not in this class. That is, a perfectly loving God hasn’t given them an intuition He exists, and they are not prepared for an explicit and positively meaningful relationship with Him, instead disliking Him. The Bible does give us this through Isaiah, saying God is despised and rejected of men.

SP:

4. It is not the case that all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists. (there is nonresistant nonbelief).

JC:

This becomes the empty set. If there are angels who have not freely cut themselves off from God, or who awaken their awareness of God which had been lying dormant or sleeping, they will not enter nonresistant nonbelief, but would enter their usual belief. Nonresistant nonbelief among humans is also only in reaction to the churches, not to the appearance of an original authority. They only view what messages have been handed down and accepted by other humans, not new messages or we’d hear from the prophets. All human nonbelief must be resistant, or it would be a channel for God’s messengers. But human belief is also resistant, since the churches are not channels for prophets either.

SP:

5. It is not the case that there is a perfectly loving God. (3, 4 MT)

JC:

A perfectly loving God does not necessarily sync up with where humans are. Humans are sure they are the only relevant beings to God, despite rumors of angels in every religion. The argument is fascinating, as I say, since were it true that humans were capable of a relationship with God it would hold. But it is also weak, since the capacity for authentic relationship already implies awareness of existence. That is to say it presents relationship as an open-ended thing, as if any types of beings can relate to any other types of beings. You can use the analogy from the animals. If you say a dog is capable of an explicit and positively meaningful relationship with any other entity, just by virtue of being an entity, that is obviously false. It can’t even be said that a dog “believes” its owner exists, for the idea of existence to a dog contains no elements of intelligence in the other, as human ideas sometimes do. A dog sees everything at its level, humans see everything at theirs.

SC:

6. If God exists, God is perfectly loving.

JC:

God’s perfectly loving nature is seen in the excellence of the bodies and the biosphere. But this does not imply relationship to the human class, just because they are creatures.

SC:

7. It is not the case that God exists. (5, 6 MT)

JC:

God hasn’t made humans into angels immediately. This does not imply that He is unloving or even weak. Humans don’t know what they are, or inquire much either.

SC:

It seems that the argument you provided…:

1. If someone knows Jesus and commits himself to Jesus, then that person will be saved.
2. If someone commits himself to unconditional love, then he has known Jesus and committed himself to Jesus.
3. So, if someone commits himself to unconditional love, then he will be saved (1, 2 hypothetical syllogism)
4. A practitioner of a non-Christian religion can commit himself to unconditional love.
5. So, a practitioner of a non-Christian religion can be saved. (3, 4 MP)

…is an objection to premise (2) of Schellenberg’s argument.

JC:

If the Creator has the power to take on many bodies sequentially to care for His creation and has done so, then all religions initiated by Him contain a certain amount of saving power, once salvation is defined (since it is undefined at present). Yet commitment to such religions cannot be called unconditional love, which does not exist in a real world.

SC:

You are arguing that a person can participate in a relationship without believing that God exists or even hearing their name.

JC:

If no humans can participate in a relationship with God, instead only angels (even fallen ones), then the saving power of the religions, for whatever it is worth, is not about this relationship. Christianity especially has an emphasis on a relationship, but while the buildup is there the consummation or reality is not. Perhaps one could say the effort to have a relationship with God is tantamount to an effort to become an angel, but today it is presumed the relationship exists without effort, as Schellenberg’s argument emphasizes, between any types of entities. But as the analogy with animals shows this might be false.

SC:

The quote you gave from C.S Lewis gave me more comfort in the fact that God is still perfectly loving through directing people in other religions to the parts of their religion that are in agreement with Christianity. A concern I have though is that couldn’t it be said that some people not having access to all the points in Christianity is kind of like a random inequality imposed by God? Wouldn’t the chances of salvation be higher for the Christian compared to someone who has never heard God’s name?

JC:

If the Creator appeared both as Buddha and as Jesus, it can be argued the appearance as Buddha is preeminent, that is to say containing more of the real elements of salvation. That would be the logical thing for God to do, give the overall plan at the outset even if it won’t be recognized immediately. Indeed there is something noble and selfless in the aim of Buddhists to extinguish their private self without reference to any putative rewards. Christians would do well to study the Dhammapada (as many in liberal churches are doing), and recall the Buddha’s stunning words, that it is for man to “swelter at the task.”