Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

[NSOE]

The apostles asked Jesus to increase it, He said they could move mountains if they had enough,

To correct myself upon reflection, it's God who moves mountains and works the miracles, the Apostles just believe, they have the faith.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

@NSOE
In Reformed theology, ignorance is always vincible. No one is saved without faith in Christ, from the foundation of the world to the end. There are no righteous pagans, not in that sense.

Ephesians 2
[11] Wherefore remember that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, and called uncircumcision of them, which are called circumcision in the flesh, made with hands, [12] That ye were, I say, at that time without Christ, and were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and were strangers from the covenants of promise, and had no hope, and were without God in the world.

 

[NSOE]

In Reformed theology, ignorance is always vincible. No one is saved without faith in Christ, from the foundation of the world to the end. There are no righteous pagans, not in that sense.

Not Biblically then, the NT didn't exist yet. Without reading up on it, I suppose the Catholic view of righteousness in the case of pagans has to do with not violating the God given order, like the relations between good and evil, men and women, within families and between neighbors- all of which traces back to Adam and Eve, was practiced by subsequent generations, and reflects the human nature begotten by God. All of the past civilizations would have self destructed by not sufficiently adhering to those universal laws.

Everybody stands at the top of an ancestral pyramid, no genetic trace may be detectable, but remove just one person even a thousand generations back, and you don't exist. So not accidentally, this person is connected to your salvation. You and many others wouldn't be in heaven without him, I credit this forebearer with more than being an extra or a bystander watching me run this race, he's at least similar to Simon of Cyrene, and not like Judas, that's why I want to see those people counted in as part of the Communion of Saints.

But everybody has living relatives who likewise may seem to be on the road to hell. Jesus said families will be torn apart, and those in heaven are our true kin. Nobody in heaven will worry about the condemned, family or not.

Ephesians 2
[11] Wherefore remember that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, and called uncircumcision of them, which are called circumcision in the flesh, made with hands, [12] That ye were, I say, at that time without Christ, and were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and were strangers from the covenants of promise, and had no hope, and were without God in the world.

Without God in the world, cannibals or child sacrificers won't make the cut for sure, so the Invincible Ignorance rule must apply to those whose works were not evil. St.Paul wrote the above quoted letter to the contemporary Christian community of Ephesus- but did he directly tackle the issue of the pagans who were dead since long before then, that's what I'd like to know. The in the world quantifier looks interesting to me. When you leave the world as a pagan you will be with God, now will He let you in based on your life's choices as they relate to the natural law stemming from His commandments? That must be what Invincible Ignorance takes care of.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Not Biblically then, the NT didn't exist yet. Without reading up on it, I suppose the Catholic view of righteousness in the case of pagans has to do with not violating the God given order, like the relations between good and evil, men and women, within families and between neighbors- all of which traces back to Adam and Eve, was practiced by subsequent generations, and reflects the human nature begotten by God. All of the past civilizations would have self destructed by not sufficiently adhering to those universal laws.

The first commandment of the Law is "You shall have no other gods before Me." How can there be any pagans not violating God's order when none of them even get out the gate on the first commandment? Is the first commandment optional?

Everybody stands at the top of an ancestral pyramid, no genetic trace may be detectable, but remove just one person even a thousand generations back, and you don't exist. So not accidentally, this person is connected to your salvation. You and many others wouldn't be in heaven without him, I credit this forebearer with more than being an extra or a bystander watching me run this race, he's at least similar to Simon of Cyrene, and not like Judas, that's why I want to see those people counted in as part of the Communion of Saints.

I don't believe the credit to your salvation goes to your genetic forebears. While your genetic forebears were worshiping demons, your spiritual forebear, Abraham, was believing in Christ.

Galatians 3
[6] Yea rather as Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. [7] Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. [8] For the Scripture foreseeing, that God would justify the Gentiles through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the Gentiles be blessed. [9] So then they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Without God in the world, cannibals or child sacrificers won't make the cut for sure, so the Invincible Ignorance rule must apply to those whose works were not evil. St.Paul wrote the above quoted letter to the contemporary Christian community of Ephesus- but did he directly tackle the issue of the pagans who were dead since long before then, that's what I'd like to know. The in the world quantifier looks interesting to me. When you leave the world as a pagan you will be with God, now will He let you in based on your life's choices as they relate to the natural law stemming from His commandments? That must be what Invincible Ignorance takes care of.

Ephesians 2
[11] Wherefore remember that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, and called uncircumcision of them, which are called circumcision in the flesh, made with hands, [12] That ye were, I say, at that time without Christ, and were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and were strangers from the covenants of promise, and had no hope, and were without God in the world.

Paul is saying if you are alienated from Christ, the commonwealth of Israel, the promised Covenants, then you have no hope and don't have God. If this was true for the Ephesian converts before their conversion, it would be even more true for their ancestors.

Romans 10
[12] For there is no difference between the Jew and the Grecian; for he that is Lord over all, is rich unto all that call on him. [13] For whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord, shall be saved. [14] But how shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach, except they be sent?

 

[NSOE]

The first commandment of the Law is "You shall have no other gods before Me." How can there be any pagans not violating God's order when none of them even get out the gate on the first commandment? Is the first commandment optional?

They did lose the connection to God along the way, but no more than the first three generations can be faulted for that. Israel did wipe out many pagan nations completely as hell was their destination anyway.

then you have no hope and don't have God.

To be without God in the world, and to have God can be interpreted to possess different meanings, you can be the only person in a godless country who has God in him, but your surrounding world is without God.

 

[Wutang]

I mentioned this I think about 2 years ago but to repeat, it seems like under the Reformed system it's better for the vast majority of people to never have been born and that continuing your bloodline is actually a curse upon your offspring and their offspring.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I mentioned this I think about 2 years ago but to repeat, it seems like under the Reformed system it's better for the vast majority of people to never have been born and that continuing your bloodline is actually a curse upon your offspring and their offspring.

I don't understand this. Why?

 

[Wutang]

It seems like under the way salvation is being discussed in the above conversation that being born is basically a one way ticket to damnation since in the scenario being discussed there's no way to get saved being that the people being discussed in the hypothetical don't have any chance for salvation given they have no knowledge of Christ. Hence, it was better for them to never exist in the first place if Calvinist theology is correct.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

It seems like under the way salvation is being discussed in the above conversation that being born is basically a one way ticket to damnation since in the scenario being discussed there's no way to get saved being that the people being discussed in the hypothetical don't have any chance for salvation given they have no knowledge of Christ. Hence, it was better for them to never exist in the first place if Calvinist theology is correct.

Most Christian branches believe that more people will end up in Hell than Heaven, I wouldn't say this is unique to Calvinism; but the only people I've heard say the opposite, that more people will end up saved than not, are Calvinists. As for getting the chance to be saved, I will repeat the question Paul raises in Romans 10: if salvation is by faith in Christ, "calling on the Name of the Lord", then how will they call on Him if they don't believe in Him, and how will they believe in Him if they haven't heard of Him?

Isn't Paul's question moot if God will save people who haven't heard of or don't believe in Christ anyway?

 

[Wutang]

Aren't Calvinists the ones that are stereotypically thought of as the Christians that say the number of the saved are miniscule? Hence that's why there's the caricature of the Jonathan Edwards like Puritan preacher with the hellfire and brimstone sermons. What's the theological/Biblical reasoning given by the Calvinists who say there are more saved people than not?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Aren't Calvinists the ones that are stereotypically thought of as the Christians that say the number of the saved are miniscule? Hence that's why there's the caricature of the Jonathan Edwards like Puritan preacher with the hellfire and brimstone sermons. What's the theological/Biblical reasoning given by the Calvinists who say there are more saved people than not?

Lorraine Boettner:
https://ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest/predest.iv.iii.vii.html

There is, however, a very common practice among Arminian writers to represent Calvinists as tending to consign to everlasting misery a large portion of the human race whom they would admit to the enjoyment of heaven. It is a mere caricature of Calvinism to represent it as based on the principle that the saved will be a mere handful, or only a few brands plucked from the burning. When the Calvinist insists upon the doctrine of Election, his emphasis is upon the fact that God deals personally with each individual soul instead of dealing merely with mankind in the mass; and this is a thing altogether apart from the relative proportion which shall exist between the saved and the lost. In answer to those who are inclined to say, "According to this doctrine God alone can save the soul; there will be few saved," we can reply that they might as well reason, "Since God alone can create stars, there can be but few stars." The objection is not well taken. The doctrine of Election taken in itself tells us nothing about what the ultimate ratio shall be. The only limit set is that not all will be saved.

Romans 5
[19] For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many also be made righteous. [20] Moreover, the Law entered thereupon, that the offence should abound, nevertheless, where sin abounded, there grace abounded much more; [21] That as sin had reigned unto death, so might grace also reign by righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The broader context of Romans 5 makes a contrast between Adam and Christ. All in Adam = condemned. All in Christ = justified. The question is if you believe more men will die in Adam or live in Christ. Some Reformed thinkers have taken "Grace abounding more than sin" here to mean that yes, more men will live in Christ than will die in Adam. I think that is a fair and plausible meaning given the context

Romans 5
15 But the gracious gift is not like the trespass. For if by the trespass of the one [Adam] the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

 

[NSOE]

No more questions from me, no faith means hell in the Reformed teaching. Looks like you ought to be satisfied with and happy to belong to Christ yourself instead of dwelling on the fate of those who came before you. Some of our living relatives will not reach heaven either, and there's nothing one can do but pray sometimes. We should be concerned with ourselves and those around us, don't look back when you grab the plow with your hands as Jesus said, that may be why that question was not raised as the past is not in our control.

You are responsible for your family line and therefore there are consequences, you can gift them the faith in God or take them to hell with you. By the time they become responsible for themselves they should know their decisions can affect their offspring, and the effect is lasting. A man's future extended family belongs to him, but also with him in hell if that was his choice.

I like the Invincible Ignorance doctrine, God gives his grace to everybody and does not permit evil to enter into people's lives as much as they deserve through sinning.

God exists outside of time, there had to be pagans who did not believe in their religions and longed for the Truth, but went along for fear of being killed, and nobody was there to preach to them.

I mentioned this I think about 2 years ago but to repeat, it seems like under the Reformed system it's better for the vast majority of people to never have been born and that continuing your bloodline is actually a curse upon your offspring and their offspring.

It sounds logical, from what I've seen on youtube from the exorcists who talked about curses, a part of you, some portion of your life, had been offered to Satan. If you're pagan your whole life was given to him, you belong to the devil and only becoming Christian can break this generational curse.

Can God cut them some slack? Does the passage of time dilute the guilt as new generations are born, or is there no hope until the end when the strength of the curse has decreased to the point where they emerge from under the surface, no longer in the red, and only by becoming Christians which marks the point where the curse goes away.

God's curses last for up to three generations, but the blessings for a thousand, you can have future apostates (Solomon) still enjoying God's goodwill, unless it's assumed the blessing keeps you from losing the faith of your fathers.

Paul is saying if you are alienated from Christ, the commonwealth of Israel, the promised Covenants, then you have no hope and don't have God. If this was true for the Ephesian converts before their conversion, it would be even more true for their ancestors.

To me he's preaching to the living, enumerating the theological reasons and showing them how their spiritual state has been transformed.
I still see the question of the dead pagans unanswered.

Later in the same letter he also describes Jews (near Him) as alienated from God the same way as pagans (far away):

Ephesians 2: 15-18
His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

When I read the Romans quote,

Romans 10
[12] For there is no difference between the Jew and the Grecian; for he that is Lord over all, is rich unto all that call on him. [13] For whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord, shall be saved. [14] But how shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach, except they be sent?

St. Paul says nothing more than that mission work is needed and somebody must go and tell people about Jesus, and that it's not just to be addressed to Jews, he gives the chain of logic that leads the apostle to calling on them to evangelize. In other words, the premises that lead to the conclusion that preaching is necessary are reiterated. Nobody can evangelize the dead, he's talking about his living audience.




Looking at Ephesians again,

Ephesians 2
[11] Wherefore remember that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, and called uncircumcision of them, which are called circumcision in the flesh, made with hands, [12] That ye were, I say, at that time without Christ, and were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and were strangers from the covenants of promise, and had no hope, and were without God in the world.

So far we have - listen people, you were in the dark but now that you're one with us you're good. Look what a long way you've come, and he's restating the Christian truths.

Galatians 3
[6] Yea rather as Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. [7] Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

The way I understand it, Abraham is the spiritual father of Christians. Their faith in God is the same as his.

Matthew 3:9- And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

God makes the rules for us to obey- laws we can understand, but He's not limited by them and can act in extrajudicial ways as seen from the human perspective. So the salvation of pagans from the distant past is not a settled issue for me.

Most Christian branches believe that more people will end up in Hell than Heaven,

Jesus himself said most do not enter through the narrow gate of Heaven.

Some Reformed thinkers have taken "Grace abounding more than sin" here to mean that yes, more men will live in Christ than will die in Adam. I think that is a fair and plausible meaning given the context

The world was sparsely populated in the times of the OT patriarchs, so the number of Christians alive in 2025 possibly exceeds the number of all those who lived before Christ who were affected by the sin of Adam. So the people of old are probably already a minority compared to those in Haven.

Then again, we have what Jesus said above, of all those who die every second, a greater percentage pass through the wide gate of condemnation.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

No more questions from me, no faith means hell in the Reformed teaching.

Correct.

Hebrews 11:6
Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who draws near to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Romans 14:23
...whatever that is not done in faith is sin.

Christ is the only savior and without faith in Him we have no hope. Faith in Christ is not optional. "There is salvation in no one else" and by no other means.

I like the Invincible Ignorance doctrine, God gives his grace to everybody and does not permit evil to enter into people's lives as much as they deserve through sinning.

Reformed Christians also believe in common grace (God restraining evil in a general sense), but this is not the same thing as Invincible Ignorance. The key assumption behind Invincible Ignorance is that God would be unjust to judge someone unless He reveals the Gospel to them. This is a man-made ethical rationalization, it's nowhere in Scripture. All it does is turn the preaching of the Gospel into a liability since never hearing the Gospel is the iron-clad means of salvation under such a doctrine.

Here is a debate between a Catholic and a Reformed Baptist on this very issue: