The Story of a Soul

Marilynne Robinson, in the first of her so-far-excellent collection of essays When I Was a Child I Read Books, makes an interesting observation.

In contemporary religious circles, souls, if they are mentioned at all, tend to be spoken of as saved or lost, having answered some set of divine expectations or failed to answer them, having arrived at some crucial realization or failed to arrive at it.

Robinson is critical of this and sees a reductionism of the soul to a "token signifying cosmic acceptance or rejection, having little or nothing to do with [...] the felt experience of life."

I find this interesting. I'm not sure if I totally buy it, though to be honest, I'd be hard-pressed to name offhand the last time I heard a Protestant minister or even a Catholic priest mention a soul without talking about salvation pretty explicitly.

That said, I'm not sure it's as bad as all that. I think there might be a way to recover some of what Robinson believes we've lost (which I take from further context to be a sense of creativity of the soul, the soul as a world-experiencing object) without sacrificing the importance of salvation. Where the rubber meets the road, whether the soul is saved or lost is certainly the most important thing. And whether or not this implies a reduction of soul to its status, I will (perhaps boldly) claim that in the Christian tradition it must be said that a soul's response to God is the primary and founding response it makes to all things. Creativity, perhaps all experience at root, is all co-creativity, sustained only by the God who made the earth. That said, I do think there's already some talk about people who are creative in religious circles, whether their creativity is explicitly religious or not, and I think maybe, to a degree, Robinson is being a bit picky about the fact that maybe we just don't refer to peoples' souls in these contexts.

And while some people might see the following list as still reducing to a saved-or-lost mentality, I think the Catholic tradition has a lot to offer in terms of developing one's soul in relationship to God--morally and ethically, in the confessional and in the works of great theologians, philosophically, in some of those same works, aesthetically, in appreciation of nature, and prayerfully, in standards like the Liturgy of the Hours.


I wonder if the notion of vocation and co-creation could serve us well here as well. Encouraging creativity among Christians can never hurt. Certainly the Catholic souls of Augustine, Aquinas, Chesterton, Tolkein, Percy, O'Connor, Greene and Endo are present in their works. Certainly the souls of Calvin, Wesley, Lewis, and Robinson herself are present in theirs. The souls of many of those saved are not merely saved, they are in rapture. The how, the story of how a soul responds to that salvation--perhaps that is where the real creativity (or at least co-creativity) begins. How do we respond to the fact of salvation and sacrament after the fact, how does it change our response to the world, how do we then develop in relation to God? A plant emerges from a seed, but the plant does not reduce to the seed; perhaps this is how we could retain a healthy respect for the fact of souls saved and lost, without sacrificing other aspects of a soul's development. I'd be curious to see what Robinson has to say about souls she may doubt the salvation of. I would certainly volunteer that I would like to look at each of them and find them beautiful enough to help develop creatively or to experience more, but perhaps most of all enough to save.

For the record, a good bit of this post was written while listening to Jars of Clay. That awesomely, explosively creative first big album. (It's also been sped up a bit by Winamp, but that's my own special thing, and the music's just as good otherwise.) Just thought that was worth mentioning.

Sets, Possibility, Logic, Salvation

[Edit: I feel kind of like a doof. This post is basically a systematization of a conversation Mike and I had in comments on a similarly-themed post I made awhile ago. Thus I feel I owe him at least in part for the basic thing about the sets and the possibilities of members vs wholes having been planted in my head, in the specifics of persons, humanity and salvation.]

1. Let x be an arbitrary member of the set A.
2. Let it be the case that for any given x, with x being part of A, it is possible that x has property q.
3. Then it seems to be the case that, it must also be possible that all x in A have property q.

What's the relevance to theology? Let's let x be an arbitrary person, and let our set A be the set of all human persons, past, present, and future.

4. The Scriptures seem to teach us that we must not despair of the salvation of a given person.
5. This means we must hold out the possibility of the salvation of a given person x in the set of people.
6. So for any given x, where x is a person, it is possible that person x is saved.
7. Then it seems to be the case that it must also be possible that all persons x are saved.

It seems then that on an intellectual level, holding out hope for any arbitrary member of the human race does imply that we hold out the possibility (though not necessarily the probability) of universal salvation.

This doesn't need to be a probability; for instance, I am skeptical that I will see Adolf Hitler in heaven, and I am skeptical of universal salvation due to the weight of Biblical evidence being, in my mind, against its realization. But per Christian Tradition, when I am being reasonable, it seems I cannot eliminate either possibility.

Thoughts?

Stupidly Contemplative Questions

Disclaimer: Chances are that if you're reading this, you're someone who has asked, or been asked, one of these questions. Chances are I have asked them of someone, and I definitely don't disrespect anyone for asking these questions. They can be helpful, but they're also stupidly contemplative questions. Explanation to follow!

It seems like sometimes we Christians like asking holy- sounding questions more than we like doing useful things. I don't mean questions like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, though certainly the outer reaches of Scholasticism are not always the most immediately relevant. But at least those people will speculate on, and get somewhere, and the obscure scholastic questions don't have the side effect of inducing needless guilt. I mean questions that can easily freeze us with how holy and scary and challenging they sound, like:

(1) "What are we doing to prove that we love God most?"
(2) "How can we share our faith?"
(3) "Do I know that I love God?"
(4) "How do I grow in God?"
(5) "How do I clean my room?"

Okay, that last one is a bit not like the others. It's a couple of degrees more removed from Christian living. But the questions share some things in common. At the outset, all such questions seem like insurmountable obstacles in themselves. With the possible exception of the third, they all bring to mind a few possible answers, none of which quite seems to be adequate right off the bat. And they all have potential to lead to a question-freeze, where you stand there stunned by how unholy or lazy in the Lord's work you are instead of actually doing something about it (or, if you prefer to put the emphasis on Grace, letting God work through you to improve your unholy lot.)

(1) This sounds like a reasonable question until you realize that the only answer that will satisfy a scrupulous person (remember that "prove" is the verb here) is to intentionally enlist in an order of monks or nuns whose only vocation is to seek bloody martyrdom under Shariah law while converting Muslims in one of the stricter Muslim countries. People with lax, or looser, consciences wonder what it is that they should have to prove to anyone else. And the well-ordered- conscience people are probably too busy proving it, insofar as we humans can, to answer the question or give it the time of day.

(2) This one actually does bear some real reflection, and I can't really do it justice here. So here, in its stead, is the injustice I will do the question: I think when people say this they usually mean verbally. I don't care what they mean, as long as they mean visually, and here I imply that the world sees with all five senses. I think what sharing our faith means is to communicate our belief in Christ as Redeemer of all through some sure and unambiguous sign which those regularly around us will "see." Even that's a rather vague sketch. While I like this question better than the others, I think its major freezing point is that it can be, like everything else, much more of a guilt trip than a question.

(3) To be honest, in my more cynical-theological moments, I tend to think number three is a question asked more for the fun of seeming profound and galvanizing people into a moment of crisis where they feel compelled to reflect, than it is to ask to actually help anything. And then we get to do the same thing I do when my room is really messy and I don't know how to start cleaning it: Spend a couple of minutes frozen in that question, then put off the real work for another week.

(4) This is another one of those famous challenge questions. I don't know about you, but when someone asks this one (including me, right now, to myself) I get images of a Rosary a Day and at least two Holy Hours. Mass at least once a week. And Adoration, which I admittedly dread trying to cultivate the habit of, because I know I'm going to have to work on my horrible attention span. But even the parts of this one I should like, being more theologically abstract, like reading the lives and works of the Saints...I don't really do. It's probably the attention span again. In terms of real-world problems this one is probably the closest, for me, to cleaning one's room. So many places I could start, but will I really feel good until it's all in place? 

(5) This one usually is more of an excuse than an actual question, but cleaning my room is a pretty good analogy for these questions, except that the spiritual room, for almost all of us, never gets acceptably clean until we're with God. In the end, though, these questions aren't that productive in themselves. I guess my big thing, my big beef with them, is that they seem to do more emotional harm and cause more mental anguish, at least for me, than they're really worth. And they provide a good out. Standing frozen by the questions for a couple of minutes is a great excuse not to act on them. With that in mind, I propose a remedy. I'm going to answer the questions. Each answer requires a bit of expansion, but said expansions will be simple. Format: "Question." Answer. Expansion.

(1) "What are we doing to prove that we love God most?" We're confessing "Jesus is Lord." Physical martyrdom is unlikely to happen to you. Idolatry is not. A simple question, for a given thing X. If I had to choose between Jesus and X, which would I choose?

Unfreeze by resolving to choose Jesus. Every time.

(2) "How can we share our faith?" With outward signs that are not hidden. Live your faith. Don't be afraid to wear a Crucifix around your neck or keep a Bible or Rosary visible in the sight of non-Christians.**

Unfreeze by resolving to live ethically and share your faith when asked, as a baseline.

(3) "Do I know that I love God?" No. Now stop worrying and love God. Because it's a surer sign of loving God if you're focused on serving Him, rather than worrying about whether you love Him. If you are paranoid, ask people who, in your view, love God and can tell a Christian when they see one. What do they see in you?

Unfreeze by admitting you don't know, but you've got a pretty good idea that the answer to the question "Do I love God?" is yes.

(4) "How do I grow in God?" Treat God like you'd treat a Lord, but seek to know him better as you would a trusted friend. You can't ask God questions directly, but you would want to get to know a friend. You'd want to experience this person. So experience God.

Unfreeze by thinking of a couple of different (concrete) ways to grow in God (not just fellowship with other Christians), then sticking to them.

(5) "How do I clean my room?" Clean it. Pick something doable and start with that. Kind of like (4).

In other words, unfreeze by cleaning your room, already.

By the grace of God, may we, even if frozen in bad fashion by these questions, unfreeze by answering them, and then acting on our answers, that we might go forth and better serve God. Otherwise we might wind up so paranoid about whether we can answer these questions, that we never get around to answering them in word or in deed.

Which is the reason these questions were asked in the first place, even if they don't always get us where they're supposed to.

--------------------------

* A portmanteau of "testimony" and "brag," that I first picked up from my friend Alicia on one of a few group trips to Christian Rock festival FreedomFest. I will decline to say whose bragimony she was referring to, save that it was none of our group.

** This is not an endorsement of violating workplace standards, as regards desk cleanliness or religious expression. But of course if your workplace can't tolerate an offhand mention of church...

Isn't that Enough?

A college friend of mine made a statement once that bears reflection here, in the context of theological discussion. I can't remember exactly what triggered it, but as I recall it's something he said that tells people sometimes. I didn't have a great response in the moment, but it's stuck with me as something that I disagree with, for reasons I don't think I could have articulated well at the time.

"Christ died for me. Isn't that enough?"

It's hard to know how to respond to such a statement. Its simplicity screams for acceptance. Who doesn't like a simple Gospel? But clearly...

No. At least not for an Arminian-turned-Catholic like myself. If Christ dying for someone is enough, that would force me to take the step from universal atonement ("Christ died for all") to universal salvation ("all will be saved"). Not doing that.

Now I'm being pedantic here. While that could be what he meant, I'm guessing that even if he does hold to limited atonement ("Christ died only for those who are saved"), he probably meant something more like:

"Christ died for me, and I have accepted Him as Lord and Savior. Isn't that enough?"

Again the statement screams for our simple acceptance. Down with meaningless scholasticism, down with pointless theological debates. Or at least, down with the notion that they really matter up against the simple Gospel of acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior.

But that's not enough.

Because if we try to go with just that personal relationship, we get a desire for more. We desire to know more, to know the Truth--the whole Truth and nothing but it. To go beyond the simple truth of Christ's death for us, of our following Him, because to follow Him we have to know how. To know how we need someplace to start. The proof is simple and observable: Simply watch a new Christian as they grow in faith: they will read the Scriptures and seek the counsel of those more grown in the faith than they are. If their new-found relationship with Christ were enough, these things would be superfluous.

But still that little voice objects: "Isn't that still enough to survive, spiritually speaking?" Oh, sure, it might be enough in the sense that a lifeboat is enough to keep you from drowning, or that a piece of bread to keep you from starving. But what starving person would live alone on the spiritual bread of this simple Gospel, if they had before them the feast of the Scriptures, theology, and--if I may--the consecrated Host in the sacrament of Thanksgiving?

Enough for survival? Yes. But enough for thriving, except in the most extenuating circumstances? No, because God has provided more, and wants more for each and every one of us, desiring that we might be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth.

Now I am not prepared, nor do I desire to attempt in this post, to build up the whole of Catholic theology starting from this point. But the mere simple Gospel many espouse is, quite frankly, more a starting point than something that can justly and simply be called "enough" for salvation as Christ fully intended it to be.

Cynical Hope and the "O My Jesus" Prayer

While this reflection concerns (partially) a prayer that is a part of Roman Catholic tradition (little-t), the author considers the "O My Jesus" prayer to be worthy of meditation and reflection in its own right and invites all readers regardless of denomination to try and follow the trains of thought running on all the twisted tracks in his mind in this reflection.

It is said that when the Virgin Mary appeared at Fatima, she gave the children who were the visionaries a prayer that, for a Marian apparition, might seem strangely Christocentric (though if we Catholics are right about the purpose of Marian devotion, we shouldn't necessarily expect otherwise.) This prayer also, for an appearance more associated with conservative Catholicism, seems strangely universalist in its hope, even though it hardly advocates universalism. I suppose in that respect it resembles the Scripture.

O My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy.

I would advise anyone who thinks that sounds universalist to remember that the same tradition has Our Lady instructing us all to pray for the conversion of Russia, indicating that the leading of souls to heaven is, to say the least, far from complete.

I am in one sense a rather cynical Catholic; I find myself somewhat unsure that the world will be able to recognize the truths of Christianity and its ethos until it's too late not to go to hell in a hand-basket. On other hand I am believer and I walk by faith in Christ, the Sacraments, and Resurrection--and so even if the world is going to hell in a hand-basket, even if we're past that point of no return, there can be salvation for its people. Thank God. Perhaps if we pass that point of no return, as a society or as a world, it will shock a few more people into seeing the beauty of Christ. Sometimes I think people need to be nauseated by the Gospel--or perhaps by the radical absence thereof--before they realize something is wrong with a Gospel-less life. I'm not going to lie, I often feel like I ought to be trying harder at the whole "evangelism" thing.

O My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy.

At the same time, the world created by God is surely good, and I hope, sometimes against my senses, that it isn't actually going to hell in a hand-basket. That maybe society hasn't passed that point of no return. But I guess with all the wars, strange relativism and culture of death floating around it's sometimes hard to be optimistic. And yet I do try, in accordance with good Christian hope, to hope for the salvation of all, and not to despair too much. After all, the creation is still beautiful, even if sometimes its beauty is obscured by the sinfulness of man.

O My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy.

As we draw further on in a given society, there will be those who serve Christ and life, and those who serve the Enemy and death. Those attempting to be 'tolerant' or in the middle will need to pick a side. There is a strange connection here to the personal "last things," as we continually near our deaths. Let us hope that as many as possible will find themselves on the side of life and Love in the end, both in their personal end and the end of their respective societies, if they are around to see it.

If the Lord wills, I will be, in the end, worthy of the Resurrection.

O My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy.

Consistency, Hope, Scripture

(1) I generally hope, and I take this hope to be an action of the will, for the salvation of all; I find some encouragement in knowing that there is some sense in which God desires all to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.

(2) I doubt that this will actually happen, based on the weight of the Biblical evidence and a couple of rather conclusive-sounding things Jesus said about the narrow way and the wide gate, and the knowledge of some sort of predestination inextricable from the Christian tradition.

Is (1) consistent with (2)? (2), judging by the Christian tradition, certainly has more weight for our intellectual lives. Are they both consistent with the Scriptures?

Worrying or Not Worrying

When I was a Free Methodist I did have a fairly constant worry along the lines of "what if the Calvinists are right about XYZ in Scripture?"

Now that I'm a Catholic it seems most of those worries are done away with with the simple reply, "Well, I guess I'll be a Thomist, then, not a Molinist."

One of the weird side-effects I didn't totally expect from going Catholic, is that while I'm still interested in what the proper formulation of the intersection of predestination, foreknowledge, sovereignty, universal salvific intent and free will is, it is also the case that in a good way, I no longer care. I no longer have to worry about the weight of Biblical evidence about whether some grace intrinsically justifies or doesn't, or whether election is conditional or unconditional. I have boundaries that shouldn't be transgressed; truths that must be respected, and perhaps held in tension, but as long as they are held I needn't worry about the details.

Dialogue with Austin on a Bunch of Stuff

Decided it would be cool if as a 50th post I posted some dialogue Austin and I had a few years back now. This was during my Modern Christianity class, so that would've been Fall of 2006, that this was happening. At the time I was just learning about the initial debates between Arminias and the others in the Reformed camp and the formation of TULIP, and was about to learn about Pietism. The cool thing about this conversation is how it wanders and meanders. We didn't actually type like this; the text has been sort of regulated to be more dialogue-quality, but ideas should be all there. That doesn't imply that the ideas are necessarily accurate ones, to history or to our current modes of thinking; I've made at least a few corrections in footnote format based on errors I made or based on my developing thoughts since; for example, I've gotten more Catholic and Austin's gotten less into more traditionally Calvinist/Reformed modes of worship. If Austin wants to add some footnotes or reflection of his own to this post, that would be awesome.

KKairos: ...What exactly do you mean by 'Wesleyan books'?

Xeirxes: Well, the teachings of Wesley; bear with me, I'm not familiar with Arminianism at all.

KKairos: Um, not really considered canon.. they're considered sources of Wesleyan-Arminian thought and theology, obviously. as would Arminias's stuff. (Remember that Arminias started out in the reformed tradition.)

Xeirxes: I see. Hmm.

KKairos: The thing is. Arminias said some stuff. Many people disagreed. TULIP was actually a reaction to that stuff he said...at least that's what my church history reading is indicating.

Xeirxes: Hmm. I also heard, the Arminians came up with a spinoff that was intended to contradict TULIP.

KKairos: They may have, but I think we're talking about the same thing.

Xeirxes: After it was made, but it was really controversial and not all AArminians believed it. I think.

KKairos: At any rate there was controversy in the reformed tradition. Obviously, even though Arminianism lives on in the Wesleyan tradition, Calvinism wins in the reformed. I’d have to reread. There wasn't really any acronym listed for either system. Just that the councils were post-Arminias..

Xeirxes: Ah, ok.

KKairos: (The TULIP thing was listed in passing in my book.)

Xeirxes: Passing. Oh. I read that "as passing" rather than "in passing."

KKairos: In other words, tacked on at the end of a paragraph that explained it in more detail. Heh.

Xeirxes: So, I got a ton of sola scriptura verses. But they basically say that proverbs thing.

KKairos: That's good. ...Hrm. I’m still interested in seeing them.

Xeirxes: Galatians 1:8 is good too.

KKairos: I do think Wesley adopted sola scriptura, sort of. Remember that Luther wasn't opposed to using tradition in liturgy. That was more Calvin's thing.

Xeirxes: Ah, Ok.

KKairos: Wesley's quadrilateral makes scripture the trump card.

Xeirxes: Wait, just to clarify--

KKairos: If tradition, reason, OR experience is contrabiblical, than the bible wins

Xeirxes: Liturgy would be literature used in the religion?

KKairos: Ok. So for worship and stuff. This is the way it was explained to me in modern Christianity, is that for Luther, anything that scripture didn't forbid was allowed. But for Calvin, anything that wasn't commanded was forbidden. Obviously there's quite a difference in those two attitudes.[1]

Xeirxes: Yes, okay.

KKairos: So early Calvinists, apparently, took their hymns directly from the scriptures. My understanding, assuming I understand correctly, is that Lutherans would've been allowed a bit more leeway as to, say, the words or tune of a hymn.

Xeirxes: That makes sense; we really don't have much other than a piano and hymns in our church.

KKairos: Yes, but you're still not the same as the very early Calvinists. at least, not if you've sung anything like “You Are My All in All.”[2]

Xeirxes: They probably made their women cover their hair, right?

KKairos: As I think I may have picked up [reference to the hymn.]

Xeirxes: Yeah, we've sung that :)

KKairos: ...It's crazy how all these different ideas grow and develop.

Xeirxes: Yeah, it is :D

KKairos: There was one guy I thought was especially cool; unfortunately in his immediate time his ideas didn't make much impact. They basically had to do with what could be considered essential belief for salvation. Can't remember his name. But basically his theory was that while we could look at scripture and find new things that we considered part of Christian belief, that was fine. However. the only stuff that could make someone heretical would have to be found somewhere in the first 500 years or so of the church. Because in that time there was sort of much more unity as to who was a heretic and who was saved and whatnot.

Xeirxes: Hmm. Well...

KKairos: It's a flawed theory sort of, but I enjoyed learning about the possible origins of the idea about essential and non-essential belief.

Xeirxes: There've definitely been some heretics recently :)

KKairos: Yes.

Xeirxes: Harold Camping, saying that the bible says we shouldn't go to church and they should just listen to his radio show.

KKairos: Who are you thinking of specifically?

Xeirxes: Also this one pastor of my church. He was, like, really doing a bad job, and not caring at all.

KKairos: Well the bible does not really say "go to church on Sunday at 11:00 am and worship God for approximately an hour and fifteen minutes." But it's certainly one of the better methods that's been developed for fulfilling the commandment :). What do you mean by not caring?

Xeirxes: Nope, but he said that the church is going to become evil and that you don't need to gather on Sundays

KKairos: Hrm.. that's...kind of stupid :)

Xeirxes: At least, from what I gather. He was sort of into the Revelations stuff. Eschatology.

KKairos: Eschatology is great.

Xeirxes: So, Arminians DO believe in sola scriptura.

KKairos: Unless you get to being one of those people who won't buy a house or settle down anywhere because Christ could come any day. It sort of misses the point :/

Xeirxes: Yeah :D

KKairos: I would guess that the oldest Arminians would have. For instance Jacobus Arminias himself. I’m not sure what Wesleyan-Arminianism says on the subject. The thing is--

Xeirxes: Hmm.

KKairos: I’m thinking that sola scripture doesn't necessarily mean that no tradition is allowed. but I’d have to check on the subject. Because if that's what it meant it seems Luther wouldn't have allowed any tradition in liturgy.

Xeirxes: Well, even we have tradition.

KKairos: Also I get to read about Pietism next, which means I get to read about john and Charles Wesley and the earliest Methodists. Yes.

Xeirxes: But the argument Calvinists make, or at least in my church is, you do not need ANYTHING other than the bible to come to saving knowledge.

KKairos: Oh.. I agree with that.

Xeirxes: And also, the bible is the sole word of God, and no other books are required for advice or anything.

Xeirxes: Like in terms of running the church, counseling, etc.

KKairos: As far as what's necessary for salvation I agree. However I would not take that so far as to say that extrabiblical sources (particularly spiritual ones) would be necessarily bad sources of those things.

Xeirxes: Well, the extrabiblical sources should preferably be based entirely on scripture.

KKairos: For instance josh harris is an extrabiblical source, but he's not necessarily contrabiblical (I’m making up words here, but I think you understand what they mean). Yes. but the ultimate test (for me) is "does this tradition contradict scripture?"

Xeirxes: Ah, I see.

KKairos: Or "does this author contradict scripture?". and wherever they do, either a) the contradiction must be reconciled or b) the scriptural position must be accepted.

Xeirxes: Well, that's where our church would differ.

KKairos: And of course making things more complicated are the dozens of interpretations coming out of almost any particular passage of scripture.

Xeirxes: Because a lot of things could be accepted, for instance Rick Warren's teaching and stuff. Because it does not have a solid biblical base (he quotes scriptures out of context) we simply do not recommend his books or sell them at the bookstore.

KKairos: But Rick Warren's teaching still isn't considered scripture.

Xeirxes: True, but it's not based on scripture. So we don't look to it for any sort of guidance.

KKairos: In Wesleyan thought nothing that's not scripture (aside from, I would hope, God) can be even on par with scripture, much less be above it.

Xeirxes: Hmm

KKairos: As for Rick Warren. He's...seeming interesting.[3]

Xeirxes: He scares me :o

KKairos: I’d have to read what he's got to say and see how it works with or against the scriptures. Well if certain reports are true he definitely scares me. (I believe certain reports say he's backing some 'Christian' video game where you can pick your side, or something). I don't really like the idea of 'Christian' video games; I think it'd be awesome if someone could convey allegory or Christian morality IN a video game.

Xeirxes: Oh, that stupid left behind series game. Where you can play as an anti-Christian as well.

KKairos: But usually whenever someone actually makes a religious video game it just comes across hokey. Ah, that's the one, thne. then. Ack :/

Xeirxes: If I made a Biblical game I’d make a strategy game based off of the Old Testament.

KKairos: Heh.

Xeirxes: Except for the fact that like 90% of the battles were won through supernatural force :P

KKairos: Yeah.

Xeirxes: So, it'd be predictable; every time.

KKairos: Or really tedious. like having to pick out which of your soldiers lap up the water like dogs. and which ones scoop it with their hands :).

Xeirxes: Hahahahah.

KKairos: And make sure that only the right kind (I forget which) go into battle.

Xeirxes: That's a funny thought :D. Getting the pathfinding to work when they walk around Jericho's wall.

KKairos: Having to wait till EXACTLY the 7th day to blow the freakin' trumpet.

Xeirxes: Yeah, Hahaha.

KKairos: And if you're off by more than a second you lose the mission and must restart.

Xeirxes: "Ooops! You blew the trumpet too early. Start over!"

KKairos: Also, having to go in as the spies and hide in Rahab's roof

Xeirxes: Hahaha. OR even worse: David being chased through the countryside by Saul, and not being able to kill him, but he can kill you.

KKairos: Racing games :)

Xeirxes: :D. oh yeah, so back on sola scriptura. Luther said: “Unless I am overcome with testimonies from Scripture or with evident reasons -- for I believe neither the Pope nor the Councils, since they have often erred and contradicted one another -- I am overcome by the Scripture texts which I have adduced, and my conscience is bound by God's Word.” And this is quoted from www.fivesolas.com. And then, the Belgic Confession: “We believe that [the] holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein...Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures nor ought we to consider custom or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God...Therefore, we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule.”

KKairos: Yeah.

Xeirxes: So, it sort of does agree.

KKairos: Yeah.

Xeirxes: Because it basically says they can't have equal value, it doesn't say NOT to use them.

KKairos: Yeah.. and if they contradict--I would add 'truly contradict,' to be safe--then scripture is the winner.

Xeirxes: Yeah. A winner is scripture!

KKairos: Of course that is reformation stuff. while there was a Catholic reformation, the Catholic church has never accepted the principle of sola scriptura.

Xeirxes: Whoa, really?

KKairos: No. scripture and tradition are considered on equal footing, at least that's my understanding. So they're considered to be in harmony with one another.

Xeirxes: Wow. that's pretty scary.

KKairos: I don't think that means that nothing in tradition can ever be challenged. Well naturally it's scary to you; you're one of them people of the Westminster confession :p

Xeirxes: Haha.

KKairos: And actually it was pretty weird to me the first time I heard it.

Xeirxes: Well, if you are curious about that. Matthew 15:2-6. That seems to sum it up for me at least.

KKairos: Heh, yeah.

Xeirxes: A lot of Catholic tradition is fine to me, but there's some stuff that 'lives on the edge' from what I’ve seen. like the veneration of the saints.

KKairos: Ah yeah, veneration :/. there's quite a few things that are sticking points for me, still.

Xeirxes: My mom said, when she was a child, they actually prayed to saints per different illnesses experienced or something like that.

KKairos: sounds about right for some families. also I highly recommend reading about the earliest Arminian/Calvinist thought. It's interesting how they make their distinctions regarding divine election.

Xeirxes: There's a joke in our church, when Peter is with Jesus and he's about to ascend to heaven, and Moses and Elijah are there, Peter wants to set up a shrine for each and my pastor interjected, "See? he's already becoming Catholic."

KKairos: Well your pastor got that wrong or you did, because that was at the transfiguration. :p

Xeirxes: Oh yeah. I did. :D

[1] I definitely got the Calvin part wrong. It's definitely that anything not expressly permitted is forbidden.
[2] Modern worship song considered by some to be a modern hymn.
[3] In years since this conversation I've actually developed a large amount of respect for Warren.

Infants and Salvation

For a Catholic, one thing held is that baptism is necessary for salvation. So what happens to unbaptized infants?  One might argue from this dilemma that Catholicism presents an unnecessarily cruel view of what might happen to persons who die before baptism: What could they have done to deserve damnation?

In any Christian tradition, though, anyone being honest with themselves and with the Scriptures has to admit that this is not an easy theological question--it will either be hard emotionally, or hard intellectually, but I'm pretty convinced we can't have it easy both ways unless we stop thinking about it. (It may also be the case, as sometimes happens in Christianity, that it's going to be difficult on both fronts.) People who deny the notion of baptismal regeneration tend to focus instead on saving faith, commonly thought of as a faith which includes a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. A pastor for whom I have great respect once said that when talking about salvation, a fundamental question to ask is: "Did they know Jesus?"

But there's the thing. As a general categorization, nobody under the age of three meets that mark, because it's just not possible in general for them to have a saving faith (that would seem to require a greater cognitive faculty than they have), much less one that expresses as a personal relationship with Christ.

The most reasonable answer I've heard thus far is: We can't guarantee salvation, but we shouldn't necessarily deny it, either. (The Catholic form of this is that while the Church is bound by the sacraments, e.g. baptism, God is not, therefore we may hope for, but not preach as fact, the salvation of unbaptized infants.) The Biblical basis for both of these variants of hope can be readily seen: God desires all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. By implication this means that knowledge of the truth is not the same thing as salvation (therefore infants, who lack the cognitive ability to affirm the truth, are not barred by default from salvation.) But it seems like all of the definitions of what it means to be saved--barring exceptional circumstances--imply some sort of cognitive ability on the part of the saved, or some ritual which might be given them. In any case it seems to imply something which many infants who die will lack. (Not to mention those who die without the opportunity for infancy.)

How do you resolve this dilemma? Do you:

(a) Believe that children who are unable to meet and don't meet the marks are damned.

(b) Believe that children who are unable to meet and don't meet the marks are saved.

(c) Believe that children who are unable to meet and don't meet the marks might be saved, but that there is no guarantee.

I believe that I've covered the three broad categories of response here, but feel free to tell me if I've missed one. I'm counting "there is no way to know," or similar statements, as variants of response (c). My answer, in case you hadn't guessed, falls somewhere in the realm of (c). I encourage people to comment and give a response on this question, even if you're just giving the letter as your answer.  Feel free to elaborate on your answer if you want!

Council of Trent, Canons on Justification

"CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema."

Source-page: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

Say sayonara to Perseverance of the Saints. At least, if you like the Council of Trent.

Also, a fun fact we can derive from this council's decrees, especially from the reference to the predestinate as an actual and definite thing: It exists. And even one of the Christian churches which insists most fervently on man's free will--that is, the Roman Catholic Church--insists on some notion of predestination being preserved. Of course I would argue that this notion is pretty undeniably Biblical, just, well, not the notion as the Calvinists would have it be.

Lest anyone doubt that Trent also affirmed human freedom:

"CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema."

Clear anathemization by the council of Irresistible Grace and also of the denial of free will as a result of Original Sin. Human freedom: Affirmed!

Discuss, #2: Molinism!

Today marks the introduction of the "I must shame Austin Scott into posting" label. Each post in this wonderful series will be something vaguely pro-Arminian, pro-Catholic or jocularly anti-Calvinist, until I can shame Austin into a full and complete post of his own. Whether it will be of his own free will, especially given my uncharitable and coercive choice of tactic, is a question I will leave it to him to answer. If discussion actually happens on this article, I'll join in, of course.

Aside from that: I'm going to just link to the article on Molinism, and say...

Discuss.

So That's One Sheep...

A theological story. I should note that this was conceived during a conversation with Mike Schmitz under the influence of a Chesterton conference and is not, is not, is not an attack on Calvinism. It is a story which attempts to use Calvinist doctrines, both older and newer, as a mode of exploration for other theological ideas. There has been one innovation, or renovation, made to the Calvinist doctrines, and this has been made so that I might avoid the story being an actual attack on Calvinism rather than an attack on something much more vile.

That said, though in some ways this story may attack, and some ways defend, Calvinism, it should be taken that it is largely neutral on the subject, or intended to be, while I am largely against the subject, but more in its content than in its intentions or reminders. If as the Catholics claim, Calvinism really is a sort of heresy, it has as much to teach us as any other heresy, and more than a good many of them. Here's the story. Comments are welcome.

So That's One Sheep...

There were once two Calvinists. Each knew his doctrine quite well—what it was at least, and between them they could get to it from the Scriptures. It happens that they attended the same church—Jerusalem Church, in a small nonexistent town in the northwest. In this town most persons found themselves Calvinists, Catholics, or Calvinists who really were Catholics (excepting their hope in the perseverance of the saints.)

Now we must note that the proper start of our tale is the day of judgment, on which the two were brought in to give accounts of themselves. They did not know why, but it seemed God's good pleasure that they be brought in together. The first stepped forward. He was sad, wasted; a piece of modern art composed entirely of skin and bones. He looked at once hopeless and repentant, and barely made eye contact with the Judge as he spoke. “Sir. It is with great regret that I inform you that I am almost certainly damned. I know what Your teaching is—that those who are not among the elect shall have no experiences of conversion, that they shall not be affected whatsoever by taking communion, or by their baptism.

“I know for a fact, then, that I am not among the elect, not among the predestinate. I have always felt rushes of emotion whenever old friends and family came to visit me, and always felt inflamed with passion when I saw the ugliest bee resting on the prettiest flowers. But I have never felt anything or had any experience in receiving the bread and juice, and sensed nothing at my baptism. And indeed, even when I came to believe that Jesus Christ was Lord of my Life, I...I felt nothing.

“If Your hands are not truly bound by these laws You laid down, I should ask you to have mercy on me, though I should certainly not deserve it and have no right to expect it.”

The Judge nodded somberly and then turned to face the other man, who had aged well. He looked peaceful, at least mostly, and well-dressed, the opposite in physical health of the other. The Judge motioned for the other Calvinist to speak. “Sir,” he said, “It is with joy that I can stand before you in the hope of rising again. Like the other man I know Your teachings. I can recall with what rush of joy I came to believe in Jesus Christ, and with what passion I found myself dunked in the river, three times in a row. I can recall how when I first took the bread and juice I felt not damned, but elect, and felt then and there assured that I would be a persevering saint, because I had realized I was a sinner.

“So I ask You, O Lord, to please have mercy on this sinner as well, though I also have no right to expect it and, certainly, do not deserve it.”

The Judge again nodded somberly, the same curious nod as before. He looked back and forth between the two and then made a motion with his fingers—what terrible fingers!--And in walked Gabriel.

Gabriel was many-winged, and quite incomprehensible to the two men. He was, as they knew, a messenger, to a poor woman who had been the container for the Lord, and now he was to be the most terrible messenger of all.

Gabriel looked at the two men, his many eyes making contact with each of them at once, disorienting them over and over as he spoke. He turned first to the well-aged man. “I have some bad news. The first is that you will not be entering Heaven—well, not right now, anyway. You see, you in your assured Elect-ness neglected to do much of anything at all for the church, except sing on the worship team from time to time, and serve communion once a month. This might seem like a lot, but how much time did you really spend seeking the Truth, and seeking to live it out on days besides Sundays, and in particular to bring the Truth to the poor and unfortunate among you? Pardon the potential pun, but who in hell do you think you are to avoid such tasks? Your Pastor did not use such lofty language, but he continually told you to search the Scriptures for the truth or falsity of his words, preached painfully from the Book of James about the persecuting rich, and was always exhorting the congregation to practice what was being preached. You did this to some degree, but you almost always neglected, neglected, neglected throughout the week to serve God in what you did. Or need I remind you of the countless female secretaries and coworkers whose backsides were carefully examined, or the countless homeless people outside of your office building who were not only ignored financially, but also ignored when they simply wanted to say 'good morning'? As you did unto the least of these!

“Yes, your sins are many, and like this other man's they should under a less merciful God disqualify you from entry into the Promised Land. But if anything disqualifies you it is the overarching sin, that you, ultimately, did not seek to love and serve the Lord.”

The Elect man gulped. “There is good news, however. Your queer group of people called Calvinists was quite wrong about Purgatory. It does exist. You see there is a special subclass of persons in the class of the Elect which God chooses, by His own good pleasure, to send to a special sub-heaven, above-hell sort of place where they will have to rely on the prayers and mercy of others—all predestined for their benefit, of course. And when their time there is complete they may join the other Elect in heaven. But their placement in this purgatory is, really, just for the further appreciation of those already in heaven of the fact that it was God's good pleasure to predestine them to be elect, and to serve God, not just to be Elect.”

Upon this note a trap-door opened underneath the Elect man, and he disappeared rather rapidly into it. Then Gabriel turned to face the damned man. “As for you...You are saved, though you are quite an idiot.”

The face of skin and bones brightened.

“You served the Lord your God with all the heart, soul and mind and strength you could possibly muster, though you believed He had condemned you to an eternity in hell. But you served anyway—you served the poor, you served the rich, you served businessmen who were trying to push past you to get a breakfast burrito at some city stand. You were there visiting Him in prison, handing him breakfast on the sidewalk, not by your own works but because from the beginning you were elect. You served them all as if they were The Lord, and served them well—you took the Pastor's mandate to love literally (the best sort of literalist). And so you have done well, good and faithful servant. Would you like to know how many souls you seem to have helped along the way, in all? There were around three-hundred that you led more directly, and around thirty-thousand that you made straight paths into.

“As I said you were, however, an idiot. You somehow took this notion of conversion experience to mean conversion feeling. I fully admit that we up in heaven have been trying to get the message to Christians for years that they ought to stop talking about conversion experiences and start talking about conversion history, to avoid this nasty and awful overtone of emotion, but you still could've done your part, and realized that perhaps even though you felt nothing on taking communion, nothing on baptism, and nothing on realization that Jesus Christ was Lord, it was still a realization. That loving and serving the Lord day in and day out as you did, though you had no hope of Resurrection yourself, must have still meant that you were in some sense saved, in some sense converted—which as we of course know could not happen unless you were called. Therefore, unfortunately, you did propagate the untruth of the 'conversion experience' wherever you went even as you propagated the Truth of Christ, and propagate the untrue notion that you yourself were unsaved, though you were. But it seems it is God's good pleasure to strike this particular blemish out of you without the pain of being put into that special class of Elect to which the Elect man now belongs. Congratulations, and well done, good and faithful servant!”

“Thank you, s--” At this point a similar trap-door to that below the elect man sprung open, but it seemed that in this case the floor-boards had a spring, not a drop, below them, and the springing-board propelled the mess of skin and bones upward.

Gabriel turned to the Judge, exasperated. “I swear—well, I don't swear, but I do wonder, Father. Will they ever get it, really?”

Three Positions on Salvation

First let me thank Victor Reppert for the excellent link to the first explanation of Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Pluralism, the one with the questions I've used here. I should also thank Ben Schwarting for being the guy who wrote those excellent questions.

Warning: this is a large post. Please don't let that turn you off from reading it, but don't necessarily expect to finish it in one sitting.

The explanation is here, and features several interesting questions for each viewpoint. An alternative explanation of the topics being discussed can be found at Theological Studies. Both pages discuss the three basic positions on salvation as they pertain to Christianity.

If you don't want to hit any of those links (I'd recommend at least the first one; the second gives a better sense of where and how the theological/philosophical currents run) here's the basic rundown:

Exclusivism in a particular religion is the position that said religion's truth is superior to that of all others, and must be arrived at explicitly in order for 'salvation' (I use the word that is prevalent in Christian circles, thus it is quotation-marked, in recognition of the fact that transcendence or the successful seeking of Ultimate Reality is not thought of as 'salvation' in all religions) to take place.

Inclusivism is the position that said religion's truth is superior to that of all others, but does not have to be accepted explicitly in order for 'salvation' to take place.

Pluralism is the position that said religion is but one of many paths that are equal, or roughly equal, in terms of potential for 'salvation' and the successful seeking of an Ultimate Reality.

So a Christian exclusivist and inclusivist both believe that Jesus is a necessity for salvation; they disagree as to the exact mode of reception required on the part of an individual. A Christian pluralist believes that Jesus is not actually a necessity for salvation. Obviously, the beliefs and sentiments of particular individuals are a tad too fluid to fit neatly into these three categories, but they are helpful in providing a basic characterization of a given individual or religious group's stances.

So I will now attempt to answer the questions found on the first link for each viewpoint. Note that these questions assume we are working theologically, within Christianity; therefore they are discussed, well, with respect to Christ!

Exclusivism
For several years of my life I was in this camp, and so I will probably be second-most-faithful in answering questions about exclusivism. I hope that A. Scott takes the opportunity to answer these questions as well, and possibly let me know if I have misrepresented the Calvinist viewpoint at any turn.

1) What about those who have not heard the gospel of Christ?

The book of Romans says that all persons are without excuse for failing to give glory to God (1:20-21) and in my understanding, in exclusivist circles the common interpretation of this passage is that the truths necessary for salvation have all been made available to all men; logically it seems that this must extend to, at the very least, the truth of a savior who died for one's sins. I had a conversation once with an exclusivist who stipulated that for someone who had not heard explicitly of Christ to be saved, they would have to know that someone had died for them. And he seemed to believe the truth was self-evident.

Following that, the best answer is that God's justice is above our own, God's ways above our own; therefore, even if the answer is “they are damned,” it is not for us to question; there is a higher justice at work that we do not know.

2) What about those who have wanted to believe, longed for faith, greatly sought after God, and yet have never received the light, inward peace, or assurance of forgiveness?

I find the qualifier of inward peace kind of odd for Christianity. However, the 'light'--which I assume means the ability to believe—does pose an interesting question. The best answer I can give is that they ought to believe to the best of their ability.

Now for circles where a conversion experience is considered essential for someone to be considered 'saved,' the picture gets a little more complicated. In Calvinism or other circles accepting foreordination, one might simply have to answer that the person is not among the elect. Though I stress that election and the predestinate are by no means concepts exclusive to Calvinism, this response does still bring with it all the problems associated with Calvinism. In Methodism or other circles accepting free will, the answer may be a similarly awkward "well, I guess you're not saved, then," and brings all the equivalent problems for free-will standpoints.

Note that I would hold that if one's particular brand of exclusivism does not hold to necessity of a conversion experience or 'enlightening' experience, one is free to believe that a will to believe can stand in for belief even when one's ability to maintain a faith is severely limited.

3) Does the doctrine that ‘salvation is only possible through Jesus Christ’ stay consistent with the belief that God wants all to be saved?

Yes, absolutely. There is nothing inconsistent about these two beliefs held concurrently. There's not much of an answer to this question except to say that I don't really see where the supposed inconsistency is. The Great Commission, which tells us to go out and “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:16-20, New American Bible, italics mine), seems the natural biblical countertext for such a claim of inconsistency.

4) Is it true that in the end times, God’s grace will triumph completely and all will come to a faith in Christ?

That's a good question, but I'm not sure if it's relevant to exclusivism alone. In terms of eschatology, especially if speaking as best I can on exclusivists' behalf, I am sort of forced to answer yes; it seems impossible for God to truly win in any manner even close to that described in the Revelation (yes, it's singular!), there's going to have to be a big reveal that Christ is truly God. This leaves us either to the askwardness of people coming to a knowledge of God when it is too late for them to be saved (a problem faced by most Christian soteriology, I would venture), or the awkwardness of having turned a faithful logical implication of Revelation into universal reconciliation. So this really creates problems for exclusivists and inclusivists alike.

5) Is it true that Christ must be acknowledged as Lord and Savior in this life, or otherwise those that don’t will be condemned to Hell? If yes, then how can you reconcile that with the biblical view of a God of love?

In traditional exclusivism, to say the least, it is my understanding that the answer for part (a) is yes. The answer for part (b) runs along the same lines as the answer to question 1, in particular the paragraph beginning with “Following that...”, with the addition that just as we do not know as well as God what justice means, we will not know as well as God what is meant by love.

Inclusivism
I will be able to answer these questions most effectively, as my current position is a somewhat exclusive inclusivism (though it is based in part on things not common to all exclusivists.)

1) What about those who do not cling to any faith? If they lead a good life, are they saved through the ‘unknown Christ’ as well?

See the answer to question two.

Regarding viewpoints not mine, I would find it difficult to conceive someone who I would not say is in any sense seeking the Ultimate Reality even though they are striving to live the 'good life.'

2) Where are the boundaries? What determines a religion that ‘saves’, and one which does not? Or should we just look at elements within each faith? If so, which elements?

For my personal view, these two questions are sort of the same, because I guess I don't place the definition of what it means to be an anonymous Christian on whether the person has been raised in the correct religion; rather I look at it in terms of the individual's faith. Have they accepted what of the truth has been revealed to them, or at least put themselves on the road to doing so? Are they truly seeking the truth, such that if missionaries (and I mean good missionaries, mind you) came, they would be open to the message? Leading a good life plays into things insofar as good works play into any Christian's salvation: they are to say the least a sign of the inner workings of the heart even from the perspective of faith alone; thus the individual in question might not lead a perfect life, and in certain respects (for not all the moral code of Christianity is equally intuitive) more excusable for a non-Christian than a Christian, much moreso a non-Christian who has not been exposed to the fullness of the Truth. So in my view, I suppose the thing depends primarily on openness to God. Now for those who "do not cling to any faith" as the question asks, it would work similarly, as a function of the openness of their hearts to God.

3) What is the importance of missionaries if people can be saved through other faiths?

The answer to this is twofold. First, the Great Commission commands that we make disciples of all nations. It seems to be a fairly clear commandment, and commandments from the Incarnate Logos are pretty hard to ignore. So that's the first response.

The second response comes from my personal reasoning on the matter. We have two options, A and B. (In both of these responses, since the question works on "if people can be saved through other faiths," I am assuming inclusivism.) In option A, Ted is saved in the afterlife because he meets whatever criterion he must meet under exclusivism, even though he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ. But his understanding of the truth, even his ability to live fully as intended by the Divine, is hindered in this life. In option B, Joe is saved in the afterlife because he meets explicit criterion that would satisfy even a staunch exclusivist (explicit acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.) But in this case Ted has access, at least more ready access if not more access, to the fullness of truth and the full experience of the Divine. In other words, it's a case of earthly searching (however joyful it might be) and heavenly salvation versus earthly salvation and heavenly salvation. What is the greatest good for Ted?

Of course it's option B! If we can bring him Jesus now, we ought to do so!

There also may be persons who might not meet the inclusivist criteria for salvation and have never heard of Jesus. The role of a missionary in their lives might be so vital as to be used by God to change a soul's course from the path to hell to the path to heaven, in whole or even in part. In other words, missionaries still fill a massive need with respect to those souls that may not have been ultra-inclined to seek the Divine in the first place.

The importance of missionaries is to take the commandment of the Great Commission seriously, and bring people to Jesus, whether that means bringing them to Jesus sooner or bringing them to Jesus period.

Pluralism

This is easily going to be the hardest one for me to cover, as it's not a perspective I've ever really held, at least not in full and for very long. I kind of wish I could be one at times; I feel like it would make religion easier to embrace, in a sense.

1) What about faiths which have no place for a god, such as Advaitin Hinduism, or Therevada Buddhism – how do they lead to God?

All religions reflect the same Ultimate Reality; they simply reflect it differently. So there's no real difficulty in saying a given religion 'leads to God' because it's a reflection thereof. Therefore even in non-theistic religions or religions not including a personal God, there are still ideals set forth and paths to follow that lead the person closer to the Divine ethically, and more in tune with the Divine as it is expressed in themselves and others.

2) Is it possible to find salvation through something which is not true, even though it seems to satisfy its followers?

On this earth, it's not necessarily possible to find salvation proper on this earth, through things that are not true--but from a pluralist perspective it's not that it isn't true; it's just one more subjective interpretation of the same truth, a great Ineffability that we do not in this life know directly--even though some religions interpret it personally and others impersonally, it is still the same reality interpreted. Therefore in a sense all religions become true and all also become false; they all reflect the Truth, but they all reflect it falsely. So it is possible to find salvation through something which is not true; else we've gone straight from universal reconciliation to universal damnation (which I, speaking in these parentheses as a non-pluralist, would be forced to admit isn't totally unjust!). But this seems to eliminate part of the point of pluralism, which is to reconcile God's desire for salvation for all with the fact of many different religions and cultures, and many different individuals who seem to have no real control over the early formations of their religious beliefs.

3) Is a pluralist a Christian, or just a God-believer?

It depends on how you define Christian. Here I am working, as I have implied, from John Hick's idea of pluralism, which advocates in a sense the idea that all religions are simply cultural reflections of the same Ulimate Reality. So pluralist definitely believes in God, or at least in some Ultimate Reality that humanity is striving for. But the pluralist also believes that in their search, they themselves must follow Jesus--that the path for Christians is to take up one's cross and follow. So I would say a pluralist can indeed be a Christian, but only if their understanding of their religion includes following Jesus. Note that I am not claiming a pluralist is an orthodox Christian; I don't really buy that so much. But I do think there's a sense in which they can still be following Jesus.

4) Does the bible have any relevance to a pluralist? Is biblical truth only relevant for those who believe in that faith, and other faiths have other truths?

Everyone's truth is relevant to everyone's faith--we need to look at all the ways in which the Ultimate Reality is interpreted throughout the world and come to the best possible conclusions as to what the truest reflection ultimately is. (Pun intended.) It seems as though the basic truths that can be gathered this way are ethical; but what to do when the ethics of one faith run up against the ethics of another? I suppose the only real answer is to talk it out and try and figure out what is in the best interest of service to the Ultimate Reality, and argue for one's own faith only when one truly believes is in this best interest.

Conclusion
Whoohoo. That was a monster of a post. I know it took me like, three weeks since I've told some of you, maybe more like a month and a half, but there it is. Three questionnaires about sin and salvation answered from the perspectives of three different approaches in soteriology, to the best of my ability. All three have varying sub-perspectives, and I'm inviting the other people who might read this to comment and offer some ideas about what perspectives they take on the issue of salvation; I'm particularly interested in seeing people who consider themselves to fall into one of these camps and take a perspective different from the one I assumed when working from these camps; I am especially interested in other inclusivists who do not take inclusivism to be the same that I take it.