Barclay was convinced (UR)

[steve7150]

If those who are lost are merely ignorant and or weak, how can He send any to hell even for a minute? And if there is a post-mortem plan of salvation the scriptures are strangely silent about it.









Scriptures are not strangely silent about it rather they are strangely dismissed. There are plenty of verses that flatly state all will be saved, the only issue is about the lack of details about how and when, and it is the missing details that persuade most believers to disbelieve that God's will be done despite the fact Eph 1.11 says it is and will.
Many who are lost are indeed weak or ignorant , for example in Revelation it says the fearful will have their place in the lake of fire. I would guess almost everyone is fearful. Even Jesus was fearful in the Garden of Gethsemene.

[TheEditor]

Hi Homer, (et al)

I’ve come to see Christianity as a blessed if you do rather than a damned if you don’t arrangement. “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2) “Do you not know that the saints will judge1 the world?… Do you not know that we will judge angels?”—1 Cor. 6:2,3.
(The word “judge” has interesting implications when we consider that Biblically, depending on context, the word judge can mean condemn and adjudicate as well as deliver and rescue.)

I do feel that there is something that has to be factored in regarding judgment and punishment that I don’t profess to completely understand. Doubtless an in depth review of the passages where Jesus and the apostles refer to punishment or the perils of loss would provide some hints or clues. This would include such ideas as those who keep looking back while plowing; those who beg off from attending the feast; the slave who knew what to do but did not was beaten with more strokes than the one that didn't do because he didn't know, etc. At this point, I suspect that most of what was said (at least by Jesus) was in direct response to the sneering and attacks by the scribes and Pharisees, etc. And if so, then in these cases it would be appropriate to apply the punishment to these groups in particular because they were actively working against Christianity at the very time that Jesus was on earth attempting to firmly establish it. Obviously, questions remain about those who are considered “unworthy.” What happens to them, etc.? If there is a gnashing of teeth and weeping outside in the darkness, is that done literally by them while on earth on being raised to life again? Are such punished by being “left behind” as some think—only, is it a being left behind to live out a short duration of time as a non-progressing human with no further prospects beyond this? Or is it more of a metaphor for being humiliated by being publicly judged and ostracized by those around them? I don’t think we can know for sure at this time, but pondering and guessing can be interesting and stimulating—and frankly, I think that’s at least one of the reasons for the absence of details.

A complete Universalism seems to paint a picture of “Well, if you miss this go round, there will always be a next one,” or, “Don’t worry, if you miss this plane there will always be another departing.” However, there is some aspect of rejecting Christianity and then missing out that seems to be intimated in the teachings of Christ and the writings of the apostles. Otherwise there would seem to be no real case of reaping what you sow, and a certain lack of justice and fairness.

For obvious reasons, there are dangers connected with presuming on a near-universalistic arrangement for salvation. It can become just one more reason for some to believe that whether or not you seek and find God, it doesn’t matter one whit in the end.

C.S. Lewis wrote the following:

A man’s physical hunger does not prove that that man will get any bread; he may die of starvation on a raft in the Atlantic. But surely a man’s hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist. In the same way, though I do not believe (I wish I did) that my desire for Paradise proves that I shall enjoy it, I think it a pretty good indication that such a thing exists and that some men will. A man may love a woman and not win her; but it would be very odd if the phenomenon called ‘falling in love’ occurred in a sexless world.

To borrow from this: A person’s desire for eternal life after this life is done does not prove that he will have it. While I do not believe (I wish I did) that such a desire for eternal life proves that the one so desiring will have it, I think it a pretty good indication that such a thing exists and that some men will. And just as it would be very odd if the phenomenon called ‘falling in love’ occurred in a sexless world—it would also seem extremely odd for man to have eternity in his mind and heart in a God-governed universe not capable of accommodating him.—Eccl. 3:11.

Will all ultimately be accommodated? Does mere wishing make it so? Or is something more involved? Any answers to these questions (whether in whole or in part) fall into the category of information beyond man’s reach—unless it be revealed by God. Left on his own, mankind could only surmise, guess at and invent the answers to such questions—and of course, some have and do.

Personally, I find my own sentiments match those of the apostle Peter who said to Jesus: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”—John 6:68,69.

For Christianity to truly integrate justice and the matter of reaping what you sow, there has to be some kind of blending into it the matter of punishment and its consequences. Maybe full punishment is only for those who are impenitent right up the day of their death, those who harden themselves in an anti-God stance as Pharoah did in the face of compelling evidence. Likely the severest penalty is to be meted out to those who choose a career of antagonism against God and his ways. Perhaps for most others, discipline with take the form of reproof, correction, embarrassment, abashment and the like—all things typical in humans when a genuine realization of faulty attitudes, mistakes, stupidity, wrongdoing, and the like, takes place. Time will tell.

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

If God sets conditions where not all will be saved, who can object? Does He have no right to do as pleases? We have no "right" to eternal life; there are conditions, and the sovereign of all has declared clearly what they are.

This question sounds like the mentality of the Calvinist, though I know you are not one.

Calvinists always want to talk about God's "rights."

Do I have the right to bite the head off the banana slugs* in my garden? Probably! But what has that to do with predicting anything about my actual behavior? Wouldn't my character be a better predictor of my decisions?

Arminians prefer to talk about God's "character"—chiefly His love and desire to save all people—but with the caveat that He only wants to do so before they die. After that, it is as if He never had loved them at all. After death, He hates them and treats them worse than any man every treated his most hated foe. This, despite the fact that He has every right to extend their opportunity to repent for as long after death as He may wish.

Universal Reconciliation takes the Arminian emphasis further, and says, "What God wants to do (i.e., save everyone), He also has the right to do." Nobody has the power to deprive God of His right to show mercy. If He had not already the right to show infinite mercy to as many as He wished, certainly He obtained that right when Jesus died to redeem the whole world.

Is there something wrong with my thinking here?

I can't find a thing wrong with it. It is totally rational.

[jriccitelli]

“Is there something wrong with my thinking here?” Steve

I think this may be more of an algebra problem.

I have read of great mathematicians who leave out a simple fraction to the result of greatly different results.
(I am not trying to act smart, I'm not, but please consider this approach for a moment, thanks)
I will use a math analogy to demonstrate why I Consider Love, punishment, and wrath cannot be the same;
If UR defines punishment and wrath as Love, which seems to be the case, it may be wrong to assume the answer is Love, because; L + P + W is not L, unless L = P = W.

Love has value, Punishment has value, and Wrath has value, I can see Punishment as corrective but it still must be restricted to degrees, thus Love must also be restricted or they cannot be the same.

If UR redefines Wrath as Love, then it should be poured out with unrestricted measure.
So they cannot be the same. But God acts out 'both' verbs.
God is God but creation is not God, so God uses His character attributes to form us, and shape us. If this process were contained solely within the Godhead then punishment would not be necessary. God has created Free-will’s to love and enjoy, but to demand that we be treated Holy as He is Holy is to forget that we are as grass and as beasts. God seems to emphasise our nature so to not think of ourselves as too important.
Man was not created out of ‘love substance’, man was created out of the dust, and to remind us He reminds us ‘of the dust’ we may return.
Gods character is shaping us, but we have a potential that God does not have; A potential for Sin. So God designed a process to neutralise this potential using Love and Punishment without eliminating our freewill, but the process is a choice.
Man can choose Gods Love (Choose Life, Obedience), but it ‘requires an acknowledgment’ of our sin and or unworthiness (As Peter did), or we can choose death (Gods wrath). (Duet.chap.30)
So since Man and Sin are part of the equation, God must apply a ‘measure’ of love, punishment and wrath to achieve the result.
It is not only ‘Love towards God’ that God is desiring of us, but also that we love one another as a ‘freewill response’ on our part to the Love of God. (Which has a lot to do with the abiding 'in' and 'proof' of our faith)
To get freewills to love one another has got to be the most complicated process in creation, more challenging than the design of DNA etc. God chose to use this world in the process of teaching us the consequences of sin and the necessity of trusting and hearing Gods words. (I cannot discount Gods setting this world up as a test)
Belief and faith are asked of us for a purpose, not for this life only.
UR seems to miss the importance and purpose of the ’test’ God has willed for His creation.
(Exodus 16:4, 20:20, Deuteronomy 8:16, Judges 2:22, 7:14 etc.)

[jriccitelli]

Rich, I know you know this, but to make a point; you dont need to be either a Calvinist 'or' a Arminian.
Calvinists falsely think that ‘if you are not a Calvinist you must be an Arminian’.
Wrong. (Without discussing Arminius) I think the answer lies in the middle.

As Calvin went too far in defending Gods Sovereignty, so UR goes way too far in defending Gods Love.
Compassion and Forgiveness are ‘aspects’ of Love in response to sin and it’s consequences.
Forgiveness cannot be simply defined as ‘love’, forgiveness and compassion rest on the Cross and cannot be separated from it, where Love is not dependent on the Cross but it is a demonstration of His love.
Certainly one factor that Calvin forgot to include in his calculation was that the Love demonstrated on the Cross has the potential to 'penetrate' even the 'most depraved heart', 'if' they ‘chose’ to look and hear. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness.
I feel that UR misses the point that Gods ‘real’ Wrath was poured out on real flesh; ‘Jesus’.
All Gods forgiveness and compassion towards us hinges on the Cross and nothing else, I want to address this problem of UR and the Atonement but since I want to address the punishment of God I go there…

[jriccitelli]

Steve wrote; (It may seem…) “After death, He hates them and treats them worse than any man every treated his most hated foe”
If God allowed man to continue his existence without imposing a death sentence or time limit, man may conceivably continue to go from bad to worse indefinitely, and forever.
God cut mans time shorter and shorter with the accumulation of sin.
So, Death maybe the Grace God imposes on us 'before' we sin so much that it is horrible, even accumulating a longer list of sins and a ‘longer’ punishment for each of us.
God will be fair in punishment for sure, maybe some will endure only a brief moment of punishment, but still we are condemned already 'if' we do not repent and believe.
I think the annihilation of unwilling freewills ‘could be’ painless and quick for ‘some’, according to their sins, that is those who simply do not want to embrace Gods love, life and holiness. Forgiveness must hinge on accepting the Cross. And punishment ‘must’ be administered to those who reject, based on their deeds, God says He will repay according to our deeds, he says this over, and over.
It is a choice of our own. Merry Christmas.

[RICHinCHRIST]

I will use a math analogy to demonstrate why I Consider Love, punishment, and wrath cannot be the same;
If UR defines punishment and wrath as Love, which seems to be the case, it may be wrong to assume the answer is Love, because; L + P + W is not L, unless L = P = W.

Love has value, Punishment has value, and Wrath has value, I can see Punishment as corrective but it still must be restricted to degrees, thus Love must also be restricted or they cannot be the same. If UR redefines Wrath as Love, then it should be poured out with unrestricted measure.
So they cannot be the same. But God acts out 'both' verbs.

I don't think Love equals wrath which equals punishment. Wrath is an emotion, but love is a characteristic of God's selfless nature. You can't feel loving, but you can feel angry (although you can feel compassionate, which would be love's expression of emotion). Someone (perhaps even God) can act in a loving way, whether or not he is angry. Punishment is an action, either fueled by retributive anger or merciful compassion. Punishment with no corrective end doesn't seem to accomplish anything. For instance, if Hitler suffers 6 million lifetimes in hell for each of the Jews he murdered (or a comparably equal amount of suffering and pain for that which he dished out)... we could say he received what he deserved. Do you not think that after that amount of punishment was inflicted, Hitler's perspective on what he did would not change? Would God look upon this man after he suffered his just due, and say, "Now I will finish you off, you evil man!" (and proceed to give him the "Mortal Kombat" uppercut of death [video game reference... sorry] or would God allow this man to be reconciled by grace since He sees his heart has changed?

God can be angry about sin and absolutely despise it (with an intention to punish it), without bringing a limit to His love. It depends on what God wants to do. Will those suffering in hell not be affected by the punishment? Or, should we agree with those who affirm that those in hell will hate and curse God even more after they are thrown into the lake of fire? Can you really see that being the case? What if you were the one being thrown into that lake... would you not hold your breath before you hit the surface thinking (God, I'm sorry! )... or would you think (BAH HUMBUG, YOU OLD SCROOGE! --with your fist still extended! ) The only way I can see ET (and possibly even CI) being justifiable is if people in the next life are dehumanized and have been revealed to be rabid beasts who are 100% sinful with no more free will. Then, I agree... God must obliterate them. But! If these are precious human beings, created in the image of God, ones for whom Christ died, does God not have the privilege to restore them, even if they must go through hell?

To get freewills to love one another has got to be the most complicated process in creation, more challenging than the design of DNA etc. God chose to use this world in the process of teaching us the consequences of sin and the necessity of trusting and hearing Gods words. (I cannot discount Gods setting this world up as a test)
Belief and faith are asked of us for a purpose, not for this life only.
UR seems to miss the importance and purpose of the ’test’ God has willed for His creation.
(Exodus 16:4, 20:20, Deuteronomy 8:16, Judges 2:22, 7:14 etc.)

So, if someone doesn't pass the test they never get another chance? This is why people have developed theology like Calvinism or Molinism and the like. Free will is such a complicated thing that people either say, "man does not have it", or "God knew what you were going to choose anyway, so that's why it looked like you had less of a chance". The good Wesleyan Arminian would have to say, "Everyone had an equal amount of prevenient grace by which they could have converted".

So, to summarize:
1) Calvinism: Man didn't have a choice in the first place because God created him that way and delights in torturing him for choices he didn't even make.
2) Molinism: Man did have a choice but you can't really see it, because all of their possible choices were in God's mind already, so that God created the world in such a way that it gives the world a mysterious gift-wrap that only He can unwrap.
3) Classic Arminianism: All men had an equal choice, but you can't see it because it was the Holy Spirit working behind the scenes.

Now, all of these scenarios are possible, and can be defended from Scripture, philosophy, etc. But I'd like to consider an example.

Imagine Richard Dawkins' life on the morning He was about to publish his book "The God Delusion". He wakes up, has his morning tea, showers, and puts on a suit. He grabs his briefcase and a portable hard-drive (with the final draft of the book), and proceeds to walk out of his back door in order to go to the taxicab which will then transport him to his publisher's office. As he skips down his porch staircase, he is startled by a bright light and rushing wind. He falls to his knees and sees the glorified, risen Christ before his eyes. He responds, "Sir, who are you?" "I am Jesus Christ, and I am not a delusion Richard. Why did you abandon believing in Me when you were a teenager?"

Imagine that Jesus commissioned Dawkins to be an apostle that very moment. He cancels his taxi cab, and keeps his vision a secret. He then goes to the nearest Anglican church in his vicinity and tells the story. They don't believe him, so he goes into secrecy for several years, reading his Bible and developing his connection with Christ. He then becomes a missionary and ends up dying a martyr.

The apostle Paul said, "I am what I am by the grace of God" (1 Cor. 15:10). He realized that if it weren't for Christ saving him and gifting him he would not be who he was. Now, I ask: If Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens, or any ordinary joe-schmo, if they saw the risen Christ and were endowed with spiritual gifts... would they not respond just as fervently as Paul did? Would they not endure persecutions for Christ's sake just as much as Paul did? If they had the chance to re-live their lives after coming to a knowledge of the truth, would they not be willing to endure even more than Paul did?

Just thinking out loud... To conclude, I don't think God shows personal favoritism to people. I believe He is an equal-opportunity God. Everyone believes this (except Calvinists). But what if some did not have the same opportunities as others (as numbers 2 & 3 above suggest)? Will God not be just in allowing others to be saved post-mortem?

I feel that UR misses the point that Gods ‘real’ Wrath was poured out on real flesh; ‘Jesus’.
All Gods forgiveness and compassion towards us hinges on the Cross and nothing else, I want to address this problem of UR and the Atonement but since I want to address the punishment of God I go there…

Once again, advocates of UR do not overlook the cross. Although I have begun to question "penal substitutionary atonement" (for reasons unrelated to UR), there are advocates of UR who hold this view. No evangelical universalist believes that one is saved apart from the grace of God expressed through the saving work of Jesus Christ.

[Homer]

Rich,

You wrote:

Imagine Richard Dawkins' life on the morning He was about to publish his book "The God Delusion". He wakes up, has his morning tea, showers, and puts on a suit. He grabs his briefcase and a portable hard-drive (with the final draft of the book), and proceeds to walk out of his back door in order to go to the taxicab which will then transport him to his publisher's office. As he skips down his porch staircase, he is startled by a bright light and rushing wind. He falls to his knees and sees the glorified, risen Christ before his eyes. He responds, "Sir, who are you?" "I am Jesus Christ, and I am not a delusion Richard. Why did you abandon believing in Me when you were a teenager?"

Imagine that Jesus commissioned Dawkins to be an apostle that very moment. He cancels his taxi cab, and keeps his vision a secret. He then goes to the nearest Anglican church in his vicinity and tells the story. They don't believe him, so he goes into secrecy for several years, reading his Bible and developing his connection with Christ. He then becomes a missionary and ends up dying a martyr.

The apostle Paul said, "I am what I am by the grace of God" (1 Cor. 15:10). He realized that if it weren't for Christ saving him and gifting him he would not be who he was. Now, I ask: If Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens, or any ordinary joe-schmo, if they saw the risen Christ and were endowed with spiritual gifts... would they not respond just as fervently as Paul did? Would they not endure persecutions for Christ's sake just as much as Paul did? If they had the chance to re-live their lives after coming to a knowledge of the truth, would they not be willing to endure even more than Paul did?

So what do you see as the purpose of the terrible hell the universaists proclaim, a hell far mightier than the gospel in effecting conversions? If God is as good as you claim above, why the need for hell at all? Who can resist? I am convinced all will be compelled to acknowledge Jesus as Lord at the judgement; they will know for certain who He is.

I see thinly veiled, unspoken (but not always) theme running through this whole discussion:

1. Traditional Christians are blasphemers with criminal ideas about God. They believe in a God who is more evil than most men. The traditional Christian's only excuse is ignorance; thay have been brainwashed. If they would just open their eyes and read the scriptures thay would know better.

2. Those who hold the CI position believe in a God who is better than the God of the traditional Christian, but this God is still not as good or loving as He ought to be.

3. The God of the evangelical universalist is even better than the God of CI. People are just ignorant and/or weak, not wicked, and a loving God must give an endless post-mortem opportunity to repent or He is by definition not loving. Although this God will use what might be described as punishment (literal flames of hell for a thousand years or longer) to bring about repentance, He is still good because of the end result. And people who believe in this God are, of course, much better than those who believe in the previously mentioned Gods.

What puzzles me is why the EU folks don't jump on the ultra-universalist bandwagon. The arguments are just as plausable as the arguments for EU. And of course God would be even better.

[Paidion]

What puzzles me is why the EU folks don't jump on the ultra-universalist bandwagon. The arguments are just as plausable as the arguments for EU. And of course God would be even better.

No, God would not be better. For either He would "take in" unrepentant sinners, or else all sinners would choose to repent as soon as they were facing the judge. The former implies that God would be worse; the latter assumption is implausible.

[TheEditor]

Hi Rich and Homer,

Rich, I can understand your Dawkins analogy and to some extent can agree. Where I would differ is this: There are two parties to any relationship. In this case we have God wielding a two-by-four to give Saul of Tarsus a reason to repent. In the other, we have God doing the same to Dawkins. Perhaps things would turn out as you say. For instance, I see no reason to believe that Saul would have become Paul were it not for his road to Damascus experience. But, one must never assume that this approach (the two-by-four) will meet with the same results in every case. Contrary to what the fundamentalist variety of Christians may posit, with faith, there is in fact an element of choice. When Jesus confronted the Pharisees and Sadducees, he stated, “You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf. But you do not want to come to me to have life. (John 5:39, 40.) Remember, the Pharisees and Sadducees had certain notions regarding the Messiah; notions that Jesus in no way fulfilled. No amount of miracles, endearing teachings or convincing argument was going to draw those ones to Jesus. They did not want to be drawn.

Likewise today, no amount of evidence is going to make a person have faith in Jesus as the Son of God if a person does not want it to be true. The question is; Do I want Jesus to be who he claimed to be? Does the idea of this man being the righteous judge of the world appeal to me or not? If the answer is “No”, then the sky itself could part with grand epiphany and the person so disposed would merely think he was in need of a good vitamin B-12 shot. He would not believe.

I “see” Jesus’ ministry in the flesh as a sort of microcosm.

Some of the “crowds” that saw and heard Jesus said, “He deceives the people,” others contended, “He is a good man.” (John 7:12,13) One of Jesus’ intimate associates later wrote of him: “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” (1 Pet. 2:22) Having seen Jesus in his most unguarded moments, even Judas Iscariot was moved to confess after he betrayed him: “I have betrayed innocent blood.” (Matt. 27:4) Jesus asked his opposers: “Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?”—John 8:46.

Jesus certainly had the capacity to move large crowds. We’re told that people were “astonished” at his “gracious” or “winsome” words. (Luke 4:22) This means that his expressions were winning, charming, engaging, captivating—something about them had great appeal. After his Sermon on the Mount we read that “the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority.” (Matt. 7:28,29) Jesus’ knowledge was recognized as not having come from the rabbinical schooling program of his day, for on another occasion we read: “The Jews were amazed and asked, ‘How did this man get such learning without having studied?’” (John7:15) Such was his impact that people thought he was “Elijah… Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” In some way Jesus apparently matched their conception of these ancient prophets. (Matt. 16:14) Even temple guards sent to seize him said about him, “No one ever spoke the way this man does.” (John 7:46) Jesus’ opposers weren’t too happy when great crowds shouted Hosannas and blessings at him. In fact, concerned over Jesus’ growing popularity, the Pharisees exclaimed, “Look how the whole world has gone after him!” (John 12:19) Hyperbole perhaps, but we get a definite peek into their assessment of Jesus' influence and attraction.

In addition to Jesus’ manner and teaching, people were exposed to his miracles. “When the Christ comes, will he do more miraculous signs that this man?” asked some of the crowd. (John 7:31) At one point, in a discussion with his opposers, Jesus appealed to the evidence of his Father’s work through him: “…even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles…” (John 10:38) Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus evoked basically two responses among the eyewitnesses: “Therefore many of the Jews…put their faith in [Jesus]. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.” (John 11:45,46) In the resulting meeting convened to discuss what to do about the problem that Jesus posed, the members of the Sanhedrin did not deny what the eyewitnesses had reported, but rather they admitted: “Here is this man performing many miraculous signs.” (One can only conclude that they ignored the signs or explained them away or in terms of their paradigms.)—John 11:47.

If an individual is not drawn to the person revealed in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then what could another person possibly say that would convince him? After all, how successful at winning large numbers of genuine followers was the sinless Son of God while he was in the flesh? To my mind, those who are exposed to the Bible and its testimony and then reject it, have strong motivation for so doing. It’s usually highly personal motivation—and in my opinion, not always understood by the individual himself. Apparently, acceptance of the Bible’s testimony concerning Jesus would compel them to abandon something too near and dear or demand of them something they’d rather not give. Only a comparative few genuinely accepted Jesus. Most of those who were by rights “his own”, did not receive or welcome him. (See John’s Gospel, 1:10-13)


On the other hand, Homer, whereas the Christian Scriptures appear to focus attention on the calling, hope and judgment of the elect, or "children of God", (John 1:12) though some glimpses are provided, not a great amount of details are given concerning the masses of mankind that have for the most part lived and died in comparative ignorance. Surely, the vast majority of humans who have ever lived are the ones referred to as the "unjust" or "unrighteous" in line for a resurrection as commented on by Paul. (Acts 24:15) And certainly Paul had these in mind when he wrote to believers in Corinth, "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?" (1 Cor. 5:2) And it would follow that such are meant by the apostle John when he wrote of how Christ "is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2) But again, matters have not been spelled out in great detail for us.

Romans 15:4 states:

“For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.”

When we go back to the 1500 plus years that God dealt exclusively with Israel, it is helpful to remember that, according to the apostle's recounting, "he [God] allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways." (Acts 14:16) And, though there were prophecies indicating that these nations would be blessed and come in, still the whole matter remained quite vague, as no point was actually made as to how the nations would be dealt with--this not being spelled out. However, later as we have come to know, details were revealed relative to the actual outworking of some of these indications about the non-Jewish peoples. -- See: Acts chapter 10; 11:1-18; 13:44-49; 15:6-21.

It appears that during this Christian era, when the dealings of God and Christ have been with "a new creation", "the Israel of God"; (Gal. 6:15,16) --the "elect" or "chosen ones" discussed above--that things have been directed to those who respond.

However, regarding the others, things are hinted at but not spelled out. The overall picture seems to be: this is what God is doing; this is the opportunity; how are you responding? Other than that, the Scriptures are virtually silent. Is it not possible that the unresponsive, comparatively ignorant 'unrighteous world' has been essentially allowed to walk in their own ways? And that glimpses are given to show that not all is lost for them? That there is to be a future judging of such and application of Christ's shed blood in their behalf? (Rom. 2:16)
For we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of the Christ, that each one may get his award for the things done through the body, according to the things he has practiced, whether it is good or vile.
(2 Cor. 5:10)
Hence do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring the secret things of darkness to light and make the counsels of the hearts manifest, and then each one will have his praise come to him from God.
(1 Cor. 4:5)

But, again, though the details are not all spelled out, still the Scriptures give us ample reason to be confident that whatever retribution is meted out will be in harmony with justice.--Heb. 2:2.

Still there is hope for the groaning creation. (Rom. 8:18-21) This creation, it seems to me, would include unregenerate mankind that groans for a relief of the suffering of this world, but has failed to recognize the manner through which this will be accomplished.

Regards, Brenden.