The "Emeth Question"

[This Baron of Mora]

My creed is the Apostle's Creed, not a Catholic, but yes that is from the Catechism.

Concerning Muslims and Jews worshiping God the Father, Muslims aren't obviously mentioned explicitly, but the Jews are the followers of the Old Covenant (well not all of them) given to them by the God of Abraham (the Father), and while the New Covenant has replaced it they are still included in the Book of Revelation as being saved. They also believe in the Messiah, but are mistaken on His coming. So though they neglect Jesus they still maintain their worship of the God of Abraham.
Similarly the Islamic religion is born out of the Jewish-Christian tradition. The Koran clearly employs elements from the Bible and indeed retells much of the stories (with edits of course, the Disciples call themselves Muslims from instance), Jesus is seen as an extension of the great prophets and the one who will return on the day of judgment. In other words, the Saracen religion claims and clearly does worship the 'God of Abraham' (hence Abrahamic Religions) who is God the Father.
Looking at their traditions and beliefs it is clear they are basically just heretics, like gnostics or true monophsytes or Mormons who erroneous add or subtract something from the Truth, similar to Christians or Jews but once more denying the divinity of Christ as Saviour. Interestingly, and a baring on this conclusion, is that the Church Fathers who lived in the Near East when Islam came about actually thought they were a new faction of Christian heretics since they took so much of the Christian tradition. It is often believed that the Saracen practice of bowing to the ground while praying was taken by from the Eastern Christian practice of the same. The Church Fathers also noted their great knowledge of the Jewish prophets and reverence of Jesus (they are supposed to conclude his name with 'Blessed be His name' if memory serves). Moreover, 'Allah' is not a Muslim name but rather it is the very same word Arabic speaking Christians use for God just as a German would say 'Jehu' for Jesus.
The Koran also calls Jews and Christians 'people of the book', this basically means that they too worship God but also that they are (to use are word for it) heretics (but they are to be respected). The Koran even specifically calls out to Christians to deny that Jesus is the Son of God explicitly, at the same time however He is still called the Messiah and the Word of God.

[Bainespal]

Dec 10, 2013 21:31:10 GMT -5 Bethany J. said:

James 2:19: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder!"

Mark 16:16: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." [Although, as we see from the thief on the cross, being unbaptized won't prevent us from joining Christ in paradise - but the point being made here, I think, is that we must live as new creations, forsaking our sins, and become part of the Body of Christ, the Church.]

I agree that belief in God is not enough for salvation. This all hinges on what faith really is. I don't think faith is the same thing as belief, when "belief" is defined as knowing something to be factually true. I know that there was a big debate among conservative Evangelical theologians about whether or not someone can believe factually in who Jesus is but still not be saved. My inclination is to agree on this point with the MacArthur faction that mental assent of the deity of Jesus Christ is not the same as saving faith. But I really am an ignorant bastard with no right to an opinion.

Dec 10, 2013 22:23:45 GMT -5 Bethany J. said:

Do you have any Scriptural references for the idea that Muslims and Jews worship the Creator just as followers of Christ do?

I guess you're say that they don't worship the Creator based on a strict definition of "worship." Muslims and Jews may not literally worship God because they have no intermediary to intercede to God on their behalf. However, they clearly do believe in the existence of God.

Whatever we may think or disagree about the possibility or non-possibility of anyone belonging to Christ without knowing it, I think it's important to acknowledge that Jews and Muslims pray to the same God. God has to universal and active in all lives, because He created everybody. Non-Christian religions do not exist in separate moral universes. I can say confidently that God is the God of atheists, no matter what they think.

If God were not equally the God of all people, then all religions really would be equal. If Muslims and Jews do not pray to the same God, then we have no right to claim that Jesus is the only way to be reconciled to that God. If our God were not universal, a Muslim could rightfully argue, "Maybe Jesus is the way to come before your God, but my good works are enough for my version of God." If Buddhism did not uphold some very important truths about suffering and the nature of evil, Christians would have no right to tell Buddhists that suffering itself is not evil, that we should not only deny our sinful ambition but also embrace suffering for the hope of ultimate joy and victory.

All religions are not equal because the universal God of all people has revealed Himself to us specifically. Therefore, there is a specific way to relate to God in this world, and Christianity is more true than other religions. Still, I think all who seek God will find him, because He is universal, and He speaks to every heart.

Maybe it's true that nobody seeks God. All who seek God have already been given grace. But I don't think we should limit how God can give grace. If God were to give the grace of faith to someone who has no opportunity to hear about Jesus, He wouldn't consult with us to ask if we think that His doing so would be theologically correct.

However, I think this discussion is mostly academic. In this postmodern, interconnected world, it is highly likely that everyone who seeks God will hear the Gospel. I think the academic discussion is slightly important, because we need to address what happened to all those people who lived and died in obscure places before the Gospel was spread throughout all the world. Also, this helps explain for me how salvation might have worked for non-Jews in the time before Christ.

[rjj7]

John 3:17-19 says, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil."

A very pertinent passage, and my thanks for bringing it up. There's another one at the tail end of the same chapter where John the Baptist says much the same thing:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. ~ John 3:36


This makes a good case, but I am tempted to say that what it means is that if you are presented with the truth and disbelieve, then you have damnation. This may be a limiting of what it actually says, and perhaps I am guilty of reading what I would like to see into it. But I do have some reasons for doing so.

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. ~ I Timothy 2:1-4

God desires that all men would be saved. If knowledge of Jesus is necessary for salvation, then the greater part of humanity is damned. North and South America and Australia have only been known to Europeans for about 10% of post-flood history, meaning a 90% casualty rate before we even begin to account for those who hear the truth and reject it. It is also difficult to see how most people prior to the coming of Jesus could have believed in the Son. One could argue that they believed in the promise of the Son's coming, and I grant that I don't offhand have anything to counteract this. But it still places most of the world, even excluding the parts separated from Israel by oceans, in the darkness. Given that God's desire is for all men to be saved, I wonder why he would wait so long to open the door, and thereby condemn the vast majority of mankind.

Is my wondering about it a theological argument? Do my personal feelings on what is right matter to God? No. Which is why I am merely arguing for the possibility, rather than the certainty.


And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. ~ John 3:19-21

He that doeth truth cometh to the light. If the light is Jesus, then this passage seems to be saying that men can do the truth prior to their coming; otherwise, saying that everyone that doeth the truth cometh to the light would be meaningless. It also says that everyone who does the truth will come to Jesus. And that his deeds (some of which pre-date his coming to Jesus) are wrought in God. This indicates to me that if one lives the truth, then one will come to Jesus regardless of one's knowledge.

This would indicate that it is conceptually possible for characters like Emeth to be saved. However, there is still the question of what "doing the truth" entails. Some would say that worshiping Tash, regardless of one's personal virtue, is performing a lie. Some would say that denying the existence of God is performing a lie. They may be right. I tend to agree. I cannot say what God has in store for the Emeth's of this world one way or the other; but I do know that whatever it is, it will be consistent with his justice and his mercy.

"God looks down from heaven on the children of man to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all fallen away; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." - Psalm 53:2-3

One of the main points of the Gospel is that none do good (and thus we need Christ's blood to cover our iniquity). God doesn't give us "points for trying", because salvation is not OF works, no matter how hard we are trying to please God on our own.

I must say that I have deeply appreciated your replies, Bethany; particularly your pulling out scripture at all points.

Regarding this passage, and your commentary, we are all agreed (I hope?) that man cannot be saved without Christ's blood. The discussion is rather about how God decides who is covered by it. Psalm 53 does say that there is no one "good", and this idea is referenced and heavily reinforced in Romans 3:10 and onwards. Therefore, we know that there will be no non-believers who will get into heaven for their goodness. However, it does not say that there are none who seek after God. Perhaps some seek God, and will be covered by Christ's blood despite their ignorance and lack of goodness? I do not know, but I do not think that this passage necessarily refutes the idea. It is tempting to look at verse 2 as a question and verse 3 as the answer (answer: No), but it is not actually laid out explicitly as such. Am I nitpicking? Quite possibly.

Calling salvation a "method" in any sense is troubling and confusing.

I agree. I originally used the word to describe coming to Christ, not salvation (there is only one "method" of salvation, and that is Christ's sacrifice**). It's still a confusing word in the context of this discussion, and I don't like it, but I was rushing along and took the lazy way out.

**technically, living a perfect life would get you into heaven; but that would not be "salvation" and no other man will achieve such a life anyway.

[Bethany J.]

Dec 11, 2013 12:10:53 GMT -5 rjj7 said:

I must say that I have deeply appreciated your replies, Bethany; particularly your pulling out scripture at all points.

Regarding this passage, and your commentary, we are all agreed (I hope?) that man cannot be saved without Christ's blood. The discussion is rather about how God decides who is covered by it. Psalm 53 does say that there is no one "good", and this idea is referenced and heavily reinforced in Romans 3:10 and onwards. Therefore, we know that there will be no non-believers who will get into heaven for their goodness. However, it does not say that there are none who seek after God. Perhaps some seek God, and will be covered by Christ's blood despite their ignorance and lack of goodness? I do not know, but I do not think that this passage necessarily refutes the idea. It is tempting to look at verse 2 as a question and verse 3 as the answer (answer: No), but it is not actually laid out explicitly as such. Am I nitpicking? Quite possibly.

Thank you. I'm glad I was able to contribute some worthwhile thoughts to the discussion.

Good thoughts, rjj7. You're right, Psalm 53 doesn't explicitly say that God did not find any who seek - only that He found none who did good - and because of that we need Christ's blood. Personally I'm inclined to believe that all the verses about our sinful nature and our spiritual blindness (actually, complete spiritual deadness! - see Ephesians 2:1-3) show that on our own, we are unequipped to seek God because we naturally tend toward evil in our fallen nature. But, it is true we don't know how God works and for all we know He might choose to cover an ignorant sinner with Christ's blood after stirring that person up to seek Himself, out of His grace. I don't think any of us can know that for certain, although personally I don't think it's likely.

[This Baron of Mora]

For a third party perspective (interesting found this through the link in the article on the other thread) I present Doug Wilson. I've actually listened to many of his talks and even at one point a while back thought of attending the college he teaches at on the side, from those I have to say he is a very smart guy and well read but there is always something he says I disagree with, usually several things amongst the a lot of good observations. I think this is because he tries to push everything into his views and Calvinism, but now I getting of subject:

www.canonwired.com/ask-doug/aslan-and-tash/

[lexkx]

Stephen R. Lawhead has come under some scrutiny/criticism for something similar in his writing (in some of his books, the only one of which I have seen this in is Byzantium, he seems to indicate that the Muslim faith and the Christian faith are the same as long as a man believes in God).

I think there's actually a big difference between Emeth and an athiest. One faithfully serves a false god, the other actively refuses the spiritual. (Yes, I could be over-simplistically splitting hairs on that...) Lewis, being human, gets some things wrong. I strongly disagree with how the situation with Emeth/Tash is dealt with/resolved in The Last Battle. Keeping the theology simple and compact was at the forefront of the Narnia writings, but that Aslan would allow the unveiled Tash any place in his new world has its own problems. For me.

God is calling to every one of His creations. He wants people. He didn't come up with designations like Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, athiest. We draw those boxes. He's still trying to rescue and love all of us. But we have to choose Him. A life lived in service or kindness does not equal a life lived in Christ, because that choice to be kind is separate from the decision to be yoked to Jesus. There are plenty of people who choose to be good because it makes them better than people who don't make that choice. Being someone who chooses good doesn't make you good--it just gives you the opportunity to be self-righteous.

This argument sounds awfully close to the Pope, or Lewis, saying "God gets the good ones, regardless of whether or not they have sought Him." No. God wants all. But if we won't humble ourselves and admit we need Him, Scripture gives no mystical standard to which an unrepentant sinner must aspire to get around Jesus. Romans (1 or 2, I don't have a Bible in front of me) says that the whole world is without excuse. And God has gone to A LOT of trouble to carve Himself into great things and small, and to give each of us every opportunity He can to invite us to seek Him.

An argument has been made, by Tommy Tenney among the many who say this, that Holy Spirit finds more welcome in the average bar than He does in the average church. A lot of churchy people want their God-stamp, but not the fiery remake of the heart that comes with it. But plenty of people outside the church are dying for new hearts, and the idea of being made new isn't repulsive to them. That hunger can only be satisfied with Christ. They're not kidding when they sing that old song, "Show me the way to go home..."

God is looking for the lost. He loves them. But He's not culling those who secretly live righteous lives dedicated to another name.