Porphyry wants to know

[Lambano]

An aside to the discussion .
For those who hold to a doctrine of "sin nature " I would like to point out from these scriptures "by nature" the law was followed ! ! Sin nature is a farce .

"Flesh" is the proto-gnostic term that Paul uses to represent the "sin nature", as though we would stop sinning if we just flayed the skin off our bones. Which, according to one of the commentaries (Barclay?) is what some believers have done over the centuries. For those of you who are into literal self-flagellation. A most unfortunate choice of words on Paul's part.

The NIV translates "sarx" (flesh) as "the sinful nature" where it is contextually appropriate. I think NIV got that one right.

 

[Lambano]

13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Who are these Gentiles who "by nature" do what Torah requires in Romans 2:14? NT Wright's analysis (you can tell I've got a bunch of his books on my bookshelf and/or in my Kindle app) is that this refers to Gentile Christians here. His reasoning is that this understanding better fits his argument in Romans 2:1 - 3:20 that ethnic Jews (and in particular the Jewish Christians in Rome who presumably kept Torah) have no advantage before God over ethnic Gentiles (and in particular the Gentile Christians of Rome who do worship the one true God as non-negotiably required by Torah). (Paul is, at heart, a Jewish monotheist.)

A more typical Protestant analysis (going back at least to Luther and Calvin and probably Augustine) is that Romans 3 will show that Gentiles or Jews who fully meet God's requirements as defined by Torah is, in the end, an empty set. "There is none righteous; no, not one." And I can't help but wonder if some of the "Wright is wrong" push-back against Wright's analysis within traditional Evangelical circles is the unwillingness to admit that racism was a real problem, even in the early Church. Then we might have to look at ourselves.

 

[Matthias]

“Since God has not left anyone without witness, people are judged on the basis of the light they have received and how they have responded to that light. Faith in God is what saves, …

It’s only been a few hours since I posted this but this much of Pinnock’s statement typically doesn’t receive a lot of push back.

It’s what follows which often brings forth the thunder and the lightening.

... not possessing certain minimum information.”

(Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, pp.157-158)

I remember this being discussed in the classroom. Almost all of my fellow students were Protestant trinitarians who subscribed to the creeds. This came across to them as a slap in the face, a punch in the nose, delivered to the creeds and to those who affirm them.

The professor managed the volatile situation by telling students we were responsible for reading and understanding the material but no one was being required to agree with it.

 

[Lambano]

I remember this being discussed in the classroom. Almost all of my fellow students were Protestant trinitarians who subscribed to the creeds. This came across to them as a slap in the face, a punch in the nose, delivered to the creeds and to those who affirm them.

Could you elaborate on that? I don't understand why Trinitarians would take that personally. Protestants who subscribe to sola fide, sola Christus, I can understand why they would take offense. Evangelicals who would risk their lives to evangelize some of the dark corners of the earth, I can understand why they would take offense at the "no minimum information". That makes evangelism counterproductive because those who now have minimum information will be held accountable. But Trinitarians specifically?

 

[Matthias]

Could you elaborate on that? I don't understand why Trinitarians would take that personally. Protestants who subscribe to sola fide, sola Christus, I can understand why they would take offense. Evangelicals who would risk their lives to evangelize some of the dark corners of the earth, I can understand why they would take offense at the "no minimum information". That makes evangelism counterproductive because those who now have minimum information will be held accountable. But Trinitarians specifically?

The professor earned his DD at Candler School of Theology / Emory University. That’s a Methodist school. The students were Methodists, Baptists, and Non-denominational. It’s possible there were some other mainline denomination students but I don’t recall any.

All of them were trinitarian. Most of them were creedal but some of them weren’t.

“One cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.”

There may have been a few exceptions but most of them believed the concluding clause of the Athanasian Creed is true.

So what was their position in regard to people who were never exposed to that faith? They believed they were lost.

Pinnock deals with the need for evangelism and affirms it, so that wasn’t an issue for them.

It’s the tension between “many of them are not lost” and “we must evangelize” that is difficult to balance.

 

[Lambano]

“One cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.”

There may have been a few exceptions but most of them believed the concluding clause of the Athanasian Creed is true.

Okay; you made me look it up.

I've been a Methodist most of my life, and attended a Baptist church before that, but I had not seen this creed before. On Trinity Sunday, we break out the Nicene creed. Other creeds we use in the liturgy include (of course) the Apostle's creed, a creed from the United (?) Church of Canada, the Korean Creed, something called "A Modern Affirmation", a "United Methodist Social Creed" and a few others from the back of the hymnbook. I note that other than the Apostle's and the Nicene, we seem to stay away from the historical creeds.

For those who hold to sola fide, sola Christus, I suppose the creeds boil down to defining what "faith" means, i.e. believing certain essential doctrines about God and Christ. That's important, but I think that such a definition misses the point. And it excludes the righteous little old lady from Fiji who never heard of YHWH or Jesus. (And also sola gratia.)

 

[Matthias]

Okay; you made me look it up.

I've been a Methodist most of my life, and attended a Baptist church before that, but I had not seen this creed before. On Trinity Sunday, we break out the Nicene creed. Other creeds we use in the liturgy include (of course) the Apostle's creed, a creed from the United (?) Church of Canada, the Korean Creed, something called "A Modern Affirmation", a "United Methodist Social Creed" and a few others from the back of the hymnbook. I note that other than the Apostle's and the Nicene, we seem to stay away from the historical creeds.

For those who hold to sola fide, sola Christus, I suppose the creeds boil down to defining what "faith" means, i.e. believing certain essential doctrines about God and Christ. That's important, but I think that such a definition misses the point. And it excludes the righteous little old lady from Fiji who never heard of YHWH or Jesus. (And also sola gratia.)

She wasn’t a trinitarian = unbeliever going into the lake of fire (typical evangelical position)

vs

Pinnock (a trinitarian, who unquestionably believed God is none other than the triune God - which you’ll see when you read his book):

She wasn’t a trinitarian but nevertheless had faith in God = she’s saved.

“A person who is informationally premessianic, whether living in ancient or modern times, is in exactly the same situation. The same things apply to all such: ‘God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give immortal life.’ Paul adds the explanation too: ‘God does not show favoritism’ (Ro 2:6-8; 11). Obviously the unevangelized can be saved by faith just like anyone else.”

(Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, p. 161)

A. In that case, who needs the trinitarian creeds? Who needs to even believe in the Trinity? It isn’t a salvation issue.

Many trinitarians agree with that. Many trinitarians disagree with that. The trinitarians in that classroom were on the verge of rioting.

B. In that case, why must the church engage in missions at all? (Which Pinnock insists the church must do.)

On the surface at least, it appears to be a contradiction. Why isn’t it? I don’t think the class even cared to wrestle with it at this point.

 

[Matthias]

Pinnock speaks about “holy pagans” -> people who lived before Judaism and Christianity who had a right relationship with God, absent the information about God which is contained in Judaism and Christianity.

It should go without saying but I will - he does not believe that all pagans are holy. Far from it. He’s talking about exceptions among them.

For example, Noah.

 

[Lambano]

“A person who is informationally premessianic, whether living in ancient or modern times, is in exactly the same situation. The same things apply to all such: ‘God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give immortal life.’ Paul adds the explanation too: ‘God does not show favoritism’ (Ro 2:6-8; 11). Obviously the unevangelized can be saved by faith just like anyone else.”

How does Pinnock handle the obvious counter-argument, "Saved by faith in whom or what? Is the argument that faith in Baal or Zeus or Aphrodite or Allah or Kali or Caesar or belief in no god at all, are they all the same?" And, "Is Paul preaching salvation by works with his left hand in chapter 2 and taking it back with his right hand in chapter 3 onward?"

 

[Matthias]

How does Pinnock handle the obvious counter-argument, "Saved by faith in whom or what? Is the argument that faith in Baal or Zeus or Aphrodite or Allah or Kali or Caesar or belief in no god at all, are they all the same?" And, "Is Paul preaching salvation by works with his left hand in chapter 2 and taking it back with his right hand in chapter 3 onward?"

He rejects it.

The subtitle of his book is important: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions

He isn’t advocating that all religions are equal. He does say that there are slivers of light in other religions, based on the position that God wants all to be saved and hasn’t left the world religions without witness.

It’s up to Christians to evangelize those religions by using those slivers to bring them to the fullest revelation - Christianity.

 

[marks]

"Flesh" is the proto-gnostic term that Paul uses to represent the "sin nature", as though we would stop sinning if we just flayed the skin off our bones. Which, according to one of the commentaries (Barclay?) is what some believers have done over the centuries. For those of you who are into literal self-flagellation. A most unfortunate choice of words on Paul's part.

The NIV translates "sarx" (flesh) as "the sinful nature" where it is contextually appropriate. I think NIV got that one right.

Nature absent the body? What is this the nature of, in that case?

I see this to speak of the fact that our flesh bodies have been corrupted, leaving us bent towards sin, and that is the "sin nature". The corruption of our actual flesh, and now our emotions and thoughts are skewed.

The deliverance from this is the transformation of our "body of humiliation" to become like His.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

Without going to extremes @Lambano - though Pinnock does in his book - let’s keep it simple. Are there slivers of light in Judaism? Can / should Christians use those slivers to evangelize Jews?

Inching out a little further: Are their slivers of light in Islam? Can / should Christians use those slivers to evangelize Muslims?

 

[Wick Stick]

I don’t know what you’re getting at with this comment. There is no recovery, and therefore no reward, for those who will be annihilated.

God annihilating the evangelical Christians is beyond my attitude toward them.

What I'm saying there is that I think a lot of people who are expecting eternal life, may not be getting it.

As for evangelical Christians... is there another group of Christians, or even some other religion, that acts better? All people are flawed, but especially in groups.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals..." -Agent K, Men in Black

 

[Matthias]

What I'm saying there is that I think a lot of people who are expecting eternal life, may not be getting it.

That’s consistent with what Jesus said (Matthew 7:21-23).

What about what he said in Matthew 25:40? Who is he talking about there?

As for evangelical Christians... is there another group of Christians, or even some other religion, that acts better? All people are flawed, but especially in groups.

 

[Lambano]

Without going to extremes @Lambano - though Pinnock does in his book - let’s keep it simple. Are there slivers of light in Judaism? Can / should Christians use those slivers to evangelize Jews?

Inching out a little further: Are their slivers of light in Islam? Can / should Christians use those slivers to evangelize Muslims?

Sorry, I'm not following you.

 

[Wick Stick]

What about what he said in Matthew 25:40? Who is he talking about there?

The unjust. It isn't a group of people determined by culture or ancestry; it's determined by behavior.

 

[Matthias]

Sorry, I'm not following you.

Pinnock posits that God - who wants everyone to be saved - is working with people in other religions; the darkness of those religions not being able to overcome the light.

”… it remains true that God’s light shines everywhere in the darkness, and God’s grace precedes all people everywhere. Objective religion, though it may hinder faith, cannot entirely prevent it. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not extinguished it (Jn 1:5). People can respond to God on the basis of the light of revelation, we can approach every person with hope and Good News. Faith is always a possibility because of the prevenient grace of God, and the Good News itself is based on the decisive manifestation of God’s love in Jesus Christ that fulfills and also corrects the other manifestations.

… whatever truth and goodness is found in those religions now is evidence of God’s work, and not a denial of salvation through Jesus Christ. It is an anticipation of it. But we have to take account now of the fact that God is not finished with history yet, and therefore not finished with the religions. The historical situation is a dynamic and not a static one. Is it even possible that Christ wants to make the religions as objective, more pliable in God’s hand, and more useful in mediating faith to people?”

(Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, pp. 112-113)

 

[Lambano]

… whatever truth and goodness is found in those religions now is evidence of God’s work, and not a denial of salvation through Jesus Christ. It is an anticipation of it. But we have to take account now of the fact that God is not finished with history yet, and therefore not finished with the religions. The historical situation is a dynamic and not a static one. Is it even possible that Christ wants to make the religions as objective, more pliable in God’s hand, and more useful in mediating faith to people?”

(Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, pp. 112-113)

Okay; thank you for the further explanation. Amazon says the book will be delivered tomorrow.

 

[Matthias]

The unjust. It isn't a group of people determined by culture or ancestry; it's determined by behavior.

Pinnock offers this for consideration:

”… Jesus spoke about the salvation of the unevangelized in his parable of the last judgment when he says to those on his right hand, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me’ (Mt 25:40). Who are the least of Jesus’ brothers here? Some argue that they are the missionaries Jesus sent out into the world, the ones mentioned earlier (Mt. 10:42). That would mean that the fate of nations depends on the way they respond to Jesus’ emissaries (‘He who receives you receives me’ - Mt 10:40). This would not speak to the issue of the unevangelized at all. This narrowing interpretation is possibly correct.

But another interpretation is also possibly correct - the view that Jesus, speaking as a Jew with the Gentile world in mind, wishes to say (in the spirit of the Noahic covenant) that deeds of love done to needy people will be regarded at the last judgment as having been done to Christ, even though the Gentiles did not and could not have known it under the circumstances. This sense would call attention to who Jesus is in that portrait - the son of man standing in solidarity with the human race. And it would correspond well with Jewish thinking about the judgment.“

(Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, pp. 163-164)

 

[Matthias]

Okay; thank you for the further explanation. Amazon says the book will be delivered tomorrow.

You may not (I dare say, will not) agree with everything Pinnock says - I don’t, and people who affirm orthodoxy won’t - but he will cause you to think. I don’t know about you but I’m always grateful for those who cause me to think, whether or not I ultimately change my mind to some degree or not.

Pinnock did cause me to change my mind, in a positive direction, about trinitarians, binitarians, and unitarians when I was a student.

I’m not a universalist - and Pinnock doesn’t think we should be - but I am persuaded that there is a wideness in God’s mercy that will have more people in the kingdom than what I thought before reading his book all those years ago.

How wide is God’s mercy? Do we have to decide the question? I don’t think it’s possible for us to decide it precisely. Wider than we might think but not so wide as to include everyone.

At this point I’m reminded of Origen - of all the Ante Nicene writers, he’s the one I least enjoy reading - who believed that the wideness in God’s mercy is so great that in the end it includes everyone - even Satan and the demons.