There is nothing that God could not do, except for that which contradicts his eternal character or is just logically impossible (make a square circle). For that reason, we cannot understand God’s purposes and intentions just by what we think he could do. The range of possibilities is far too broad, and there is no way we could discern which way he might go from among them all. Rather we must go by his revelation, what he has said he will do, has done, or is doing.

Since he is God over the dead who await resurrection, as well as the living, there is no reason to think that he cannot use the time between his death and their resurrection to offer them the opportunity to have redemptive faith in him. Surely it is within God’s power to direct the righteous dead to preach the gospel to the ignorant dead.

I am constantly puzzled as to why people insist that those who miss hearing the gospel before their own death are forever lost, and that this situation is necessary in order to motivate us to evangelize the rest of mankind. That looks like a sacrifice of a mass of eternal souls for the mere purpose of motivating some of us to care for the souls of a few. Since God is no respecter of persons, why would he not use his dominion over the not-yet-resurrected dead to complete his work of evangelization of all humanity? Is he too busy? Does he not care about them? Does he lack the power? NO. If we were to embrace this concept, that God seeks to perfect the evangelization of all mankind, that should be enough motivation for us to participate in God’s great plan for mankind’s salvation.

Responses to these questions show that most American Christians are not thinking only of other Christian denominations when they say many religions can lead to eternal life. To the contrary, among those who say many religions provide a path to eternal life, strong majorities believe that both Christian and non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving brother. I am thankful that you are thankful for the Cross.

You are free to express your thoughts and opinions, of course. Does it occur to you that that’s a weak thing to say in response?

You are free to speak, but your speech has a context and it has an effect. It would appear from your conversation here that you think the most important issue at hand is the historicity of Adam. Knowing you from prior conversations, you specifically think that the historicity of Adam at the beginning of days in a young creation is of crucial importance.

If you’ll re-read my post, you’ll find that it was directed to those who think there are multiple ways to God. They’re not asking about the historicity of Adam, Steve. Maybe you think they should be, but my point was that they should be thinking about the Cross.

Of course one could explore why the Cross matters, and there is a time to do that. I am fundamentally in agreement with you on that crucial set of beliefs. But as both pentamom and I have said, it’s not necessary to say everything every time one opens one’s mouth.

Note that in referencing the Cross I also did not go into the history of the OT sacrifices, the Passover, the progression of revelation, the canon, the hypostatic union, or my position on infralapsarianism vs. supralapsarianism. There’s a lot I chose not to say, in other words, and it wasn’t because I thought it was all unimportant. It was because I thought I could communicate my point better by focusing on my point.

So yes, you are free to say what you want to say. We are free to point out that you are riding a hobby horse of yours onto a different path than the topic of this post.

Sorry, I have Anselm on the brain, as I’m writing a paper for my church history class at seminary.

Dear Pentamom,
Am I not free on this blog to express my thoughts and opinions? That’s all I am attempting to do. To express thoughts that will generate a bounce back, whether in agreement or not, so that we might discuss their validity in accordance with Scripture.

‘And actually, I’ve seen enough of you around here to make a fair guess at your assumptions, so I thought I could get away with leaving some shared assumptions in the background. Is there some reason that this is actually wrong?’

Not at all. Yet there are hidden and unsaid assumptions that you and I and Tom might share that are not shared by all. The hidden assumption in Tom’s beautiful post is that the Cross had to mean something, had to be tied down and rooted in something. And what is that?

The question of ‘why the Messiah, the Christ, had to die, why the Cross was necessary, is fundamental to this discussion, is it not? It’s fundamental to our shared Christian doctrine.

The answer is fundamentally then rooted in Scripture. Specifically then in the book of Genesis and the history of one man and one woman, who historically disobeyed God’s command (Gen.2:17) and historically Fell from the sinless state of innocence they had been created in (Gen. 3:14-19).

In other words, if Adam was not historical, if his historical sin did not bring physical death per God’s warning, then Christ’s physical death on a Cross in payment for that sin, is meaningless. Christ’s death would bear no relationship to anything. It would not be the solution to man’s problem, man’s utter need for redemption and reconcilation. Why would man need to be saved? What would be the purpose?

A well known contemporary theologian (I honestly forget who) is known for saying, “If you have to say everything any time you say something, you’ll never be able to say anything.”

And actually, I’ve seen enough of you around here to make a fair guess at your assumptions, so I thought I could get away with leaving some shared assumptions in the background. Is there some reason that this is actually wrong?

“What ‘death’ are you referring to? Can you specify this ‘death’?”

Death is one thing, with many aspects. What is there to “specify?” I mean the whole thing.

Why are you trying to stir up conflict over this?

It actually doesn’t, does it? Unless you assume we all know what you’re talking about. The words ‘atonement for the objectively guilty’, carries several unstated assumptions. What are those assumptions?

‘because I was assuming we both agree that the debt is very large, not something that can be dealt with by something less traumatic.’

Again, I think we do agree, but what is the unstated assumption that we agree about? Why is our debt large? What is it in the Biblical account that tells me I have a large debt that had to be satisfied in the Cross: and the painful, can one say, ‘excruciating’, physical death of Christ upon it?

Why should I accept your definition of ‘death can only be overcome by overcoming it’? What ‘death’ are you referring to? Can you specify this ‘death’?