"Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." (Luke 13: 23-24 kjv)
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matt. 7: 13-14)
I read a short commentary on the passage in Luke's gospel. Two things that bible teacher said surprised me, and are, I believe, wrong things to say in commentary on the text.
First, it was said that the question- "Lord, are there few that be saved?" - was not a good question, and I totally reject that comment and observation. It is not an "ignorant and unlearned question" to avoid (II Tim. 2: 23), but one which I dare say has entered into the mind of everyone who has ever thought about the doctrine of salvation. It is not a foolish thought or inquiry. Theological books have been written to answer this question.
Some say few are saved (my view, and most Calvinists and Arminians), some say most are saved (like many Hardshell Baptists who are quasi Universalists), and some say all men will be saved (Universal Salvation advocates). Who does Christ say is right? He said few walk the road that leads to life after death. So, he answered the question. Few people will be saved and most of the race* will not be saved, for they end up in destruction. Remember Jesus also said "many are called but few are chosen" (Matt. 22: 14)
This bible teacher, however, thought that it was an unsettled question in the Christian scholarly world and one where people could argue about tiringly for hours (like on the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin), without ever getting a definite answer or it being profitable or pleasing to the Lord. I reject that conclusion and summary.
If it was a wrong question, not good, then why did Christ answer it? Why did he not simply say to his student "that is not a good question and here is why"? And why does he at other times speak of only few being saved? If the question is not good, then why preach that only few are chosen? The question invalidates the subject? Or the inquiry?
Second, this same bible teacher said that Jesus did not answer the man's question. How one can read the above texts and draw that conclusion is bewildering and befuddling to me. Jesus absolutely did answer the question.
The brother did, in his short commentary, say that Jesus was responding to the question in a way so as to move the inquirer's mind away from questioning the salvation of others, or of the race of men, to questioning his own salvation, i.e. each should concern himself with his own salvation and not concern himself with how many others are saved. Well, I reject part of that. It is not an either/or matter. I can be equally concerned about my own salvation while concerned with how many ultimately will be saved.
I certainly do agree that we should focus on making our own individual election and salvation sure (II Peter 1: 10-11) but that does not mean that the question about who and how many will be saved are not good questions.
Jesus' answer to the question uprooted Universalism and quasi Universalism (Hardshellism). It also shows that perseverance in faith and holiness are requisites for final salvation.
*Of course, we are talking about only those who do not die in infancy. Many Calvinists, like Spurgeon, said that when you consider the enormous numbers of people who died in infancy since the world began, it may make the redeemed the majority of the race. But, he also taught, that if we restrict the question to those who passed out of infancy and became accountable for themselves, few of the race are saved. Also, many Arminians affirm that infants do not need salvation (either because of their denial of original sin or their belief in what is called "the age of accountability"). That too must be factored into the equation.
I too have been "concerned" with how many will be saved. When I look at the corrupt world, I must conclude that it will be very few. However, on the other hand, I sometimes think it will be many more than some of us believe. For example, I do believe many among the Catholics have a real saving faith, even with their errors. The same for other groups such as the Campbellites. While they may not know assurance of their salvation, I believe some are saved none the less. Others among the evangelical community, are ready to declare that if you have no assurance, then there is no salvation, thus all Catholics and others who have "works" in their theology are all lost. Very tough subject. The only thing we really can do, is tell everyone we can that their is a Savior in Zion, and a balm if Gilead.
ReplyDeleteI also have difficulty sorting through how eschatology views effect soteriology views. If the human race continues on forever as a self propagating species, as I think is right along with others, then far more will be saved than were ever damned. I think Christ is stating how many adults, in this present age, will be saved. That he excludes infants or idiots can be inferred from the fact that the saved and the damned walk paths (live lives of sin or godliness). Also, entering the strait gate is what one does in becoming a convert to Christ. Infants and idiots do not do this. Also, I don't think Christ is looking into who gets saved in the Millennium or in the ages that follow.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your input