@MattGutting Right, this is the core difference between Catholic and Protestant soteriology. We believe that grace is not just required, not just enabling and empowering, but the whole deal.

@MattGutting Can I ask what advantages you see in us meriting salvation through God's grace rather than receiving it outright?

@LeeWoofenden Indeed, because the wife wanted a clean house, not the husband to clean the house; he could have hired a worker, for example.

@curiousdannii I'm not sure what you mean by "advantages". I can tell you (after some thought) why the Church believes this to be the case; I'm not sure that it believes that this offers advantages in any sense. There's probably an answered question to that effect, in fact (that is, a question asking why Catholicism believes that Christians must work to merit eternal life, even after receiving justifying and sanctifying grace).

@LeakyNun Swedenborg said that "charity [a synonym for doing good works] is doing things sensibly so that good will come from them" (The New Jerusalem #100).

@LeeWoofenden Indeed.

@LeeWoofenden Its important that a person believes that what they say will exist. Once a person realizes that the words that they say gets manifested into existence, then the person will repent of looking to the past, and look to the future.

@MattGutting yes I understand you are going with different levels here. So just because your nation is friends with another nation, I am not friends with every individual in that nation, nor they with me.

But my response wound be that God does not have our limitations. Let's not make God in our image. Also, my analogy is not mine, it is a continued theme straight out of scripture.

@Joshua As in God's image we also create by what we say, for "he does the work" and the work that he does, that's "his glory".

Therefore its good to go and befriend all of every nation, for that fulfills the requirement of the law, "Love thy neighbor as thy self."

@MattGutting When you say that grace is sanctifying you what do you mean? You never clarified your usage of "grace of God". I would point to Exodus 31:13 which tells us the Sabbath was given for a sign that "I, the LORD, sanctify you"

@MattGutting When a person has a hand, its good that the hand works. When a person has an eye, its good that the eye works. When a person joins the body of Christ that member should work. It comes to the very nature of the definition of the word "good" - functionality. And God is Good. =)

This seems out of place when talking about Old Testament Sabbath but then we continue 2 verse 17 to where God says while speaking in first person "he rested" on the seventh day. I say this speaks of Christ. Hebrews 4 speaks more on this

@Joshua "and he will bear˙goes to˙at˙day˙the seventh˙and he will set apart˙at you˙for˙in˙seven of˙from all˙of his work˙which˙in seeing˙goes to˙to work" (Gen 2:3)

The Disobedience being spoken of is Disobedience not to the law and the Commandments or any moral law but to the command not to work on the Sabbath. We cannot enter this Rest by working for it. Christ has already done the work. He died was buried and then rested on the 7th Day and did not rise until Sunday.

@Joshua Its like an artist that spent 6 days painting the world, then on the seventh he simply looked at the painting.

There's a saying, "Take the time to smell the roses."

And even a better one, "Always appreciate what God does."

For this is the very center of the point to the Sabbath.

It's like he said, "Take a day during the week to appreciate what I have done."

Yet does a person fail if they appreciate all day long?

Its similar to tithing. They offer the first tenth.

Does it make it wrong to offer it all?

Yet he has no need for money, he only wants our attention.

@Decrypted but now that it is finished are we continually resting in him. Seeing all he has done for us already and living in it. Or are we working for 6 days and then standing back to examine our work and whether it is good enough to now merit salvation?

Better yet, to always consider our work as his, and appreciate it all the time =)

Salvation is Loving God, and those that do it, do what needs done.

@Joshua Good question, I'm responding so that you know I've seen this but it'll take me a bit of time to put a good explanation together.

@Joshua We do not merit salvation by our good works, nor do good works done for merit contribute anything to salvation.

None of these biblical reasons for doing good works has anything to do with merit. And when we do good works for these reasons (not to merit or earn heaven) they do contribute to our salvation, and are in fact an integral part of our salvation.

Merit has nothing to do with good works that contribute to salvation.

Protestant theology represents a complete misunderstanding of the role of good works in salvation.

Just as Protestant theology misunderstands the role of faith in salvation by continually attaching the biblically rejected word and concept "alone" to faith, so it misunderstands the role of good works in salvation by continually attaching the biblically rejected word and concept of "merit" to them.

@LeeWoofenden That's not the Catholic reasoning - I'm wondering whether Joshua and I ought to go into a separate room to discuss so that these two conversations don't get confused?

@Joshua what do you think?

@LeeWoofenden I will break my own rule here and engage with you simply because I think this is so profound.

@LeeWoofenden The fact that not one of your three reasons for doing good is that we love God is the essence of our disagreement, on all levels. Jesus is quite plain on this. You have removed the primary commandment for Christians (and Israel at that) to love the Lord our God and bumped the second to love our neighbor down to third.

@Joshua Yes, I should have explicitly included loving God. But as Jesus tells us in Matthew 25:31-46, when we love our neighbor, we are loving God.

@Joshua Also, my list was made in reverse order of the excellence of the reasons, starting from the bottom up. That's because that is the order in which we fallen human beings ordinarily progress: from obedience through understanding to love. Ancient Judaism was a religion of obedience. Christ replaced it with a religion of understanding. And now Christianity is finally, I think, progressing to the religion of love that Christ wanted all along.

@LeeWoofenden It is not something to be included. It is the source, in this is contained all the law and the prophets! One does not become righteous by doing righteous things, for the unrighteous cannot do right outside of a love for God. And we cannot love God without the grace given by God.

@Joshua I understand all of those things. But our love for God starts at the basic level of obedience to God, and progresses from there.

When climbing a mountain, you do not start at the summit.

@MattGutting The Upper Room is an open discussion. If you want to form a separate room for a two-way discussion with @Joshua, I will certainly respect that.

@LeeWoofenden It would break my heart if one day when my son was grown he would tell me his love for me was founded on obedience to my authority. While he is young, I use my laws to teach him about what is important to me and to protect him. I am seeki g to train his heart. But one day he will see the love I have for him by see what I have done and I pray he responds with love.

Just because I started with law does not mean that is what he needed to do to be loved.

@Joshua Exactly. When our children are young, they must learn to obey us. They do not know or understand the rules or the dangers we want to protect them from. As they grow up, they can begin to understand why we imposed the rules we did. And as you say, the hope is that once they reach adulthood, they will look back on it all and understand that we did it out of love--and that they will return our love as well.

That's not to say there isn't a lot of love along the way, too. But there is a progression as we grow up, also, from obedience to understanding to love.

My children are all young adults now, ranging in age from 19 to 27. They did not always appreciate the things I made them do and not do when they were young. But now they understand better, and they appreciate what I did for them in a way they could not when they were children and teens.

@LeeWoofenden But they will not learn how to love me by obeying. He obeys to receive good things or avoid punishment. He will never understand my love for him or have his heart turned to love me by obeying any command I give him. Not even the command to love me can make him love me.

Now I can explain to them why I did what I did, and larger issues of a parent's responsibility to children, and goals in raising them. One of my sons now has a baby of his own. And he is on the road to understanding all of this from his own experience.

@Joshua Obedience is the lowest level. It is not the goal. But they must obey certain rules in order to form their character and habits in a good rather than wild way. Not imposing basic rules on children does them a terrible disservice, and shows a great lack of love for them.

Obviously the rules must not be arbitrary, but for good and practical reasons. We don't forbid young children to run out into the street just because we want to impose rules on them. We do it because we love them and we don't want them to get hurt or killed by a passing car.

It is only over time that they will realize that even the need to obey us is a function of our love for them and their wellbeing.

And when they get older, and enter into adult life, they outgrow the need to obey us, because the rules have been internalized. They understand the reasons for them, and they regulate their own behavior accordingly. Not perfectly, of course. But it now becomes their own responsibility to run their own life.

If I still had to follow the commands of my father I would grow in resentment to him, not in love. Until our desires are turned to desiring God we cannot even begin to obey in love. And then the point is not the obedience but the love. No amount of laws can do that.

@Joshua In the OT, God imposes many rules on the Israelites. But he also expresses his great love and favor for them. The two are not mutually exclusive. But when people are at a low level spiritually--as the ancient Israelites were--they must be kept under obedience so that they do not "run out into the street" and get hurt or killed.

@Joshua But if there are no laws when we are young--either chronologically or spiritually--we will grow up as a "wild vine" that was never pruned or tended to. There will be no foundation of right habits and behavior on which to build a superstructure of love.

That is why we must progress spiritually, also, from obedience to understanding to love. Faith-focused religions are religions of understanding. Early Christianity replaced obedience with faith / understanding. That was part of the progression from obedience through understanding to love.

However, Christianity could not have arisen without the foundation of Judaism. The NT is fully founded on the OT. A religion of faith requires an earlier religion of obedience as its foundation.

And then we are told that the things of God are foolishness to us, so not even our understanding can look at it and make sense of it. It is only God working change us and revealing his love to us that we can respond in love. If I had to define Faith It would be this. Our response of love to his revealing of his love through Christ oh the cross. And that love drives God works but those works mean nothing, nor can they even happen, absent Faith.

This is how we humans develop both psychologically and spiritually.

@Joshua I don't disagree. But I would add that the faith means nothing, absent works. The two must be together. Alone, neither one of them accomplishes anything at all. That is the message of the entire Bible. James encapsulates it in James 2:14-26.

When I tell my son to do something and he does it angrily because he has to, it is not love. When he does it to get something he wants, it is not love.

@Joshua Are you talking about love on his part or love on your part?

Whoops a "not" was missing. His love.

@Joshua It is, I hope, love on your part. Aren't you imposing rules on him, and aren't you offering rewards and threatening punishments on him, because you love him and you want to form his character toward what is good?

The Bible is full of promised rewards and threatened punishments. And ultimately, they are all about God's love for his people.

@LeeWoofenden this goes back to what Matt and I were speaking of. I am saying love is a prerequisite for those works. Not a Cooperative or combined package. and only a right and loving faith will produce those works of faith as evidence. That is how I can save Faith takes priority simply because it has to come first.

@LeeWoofenden we already covered that I'm doing it out of love. I am speaking of his response. He can obey me all he likes but until he does it with a right heart it will never actually be fulfilling the full Spirit of the law that was given in love.

@Joshua Sure. But as I said, when climbing a mountain, one does not start at the summit. One starts at the base, and climbs up to the summit over a space of hours or days.

We start with obedience because we must learn what is right and wrong through experience. Then we come to understand why those rules are in place. And then we come to love God for his care for us throughout the time when we ourselves were ignorant and refractory, and God had to whip us into shape.

Being born again, like being born the first time, is not a single event. It takes nine months of gestation in the womb before we are born. And then it takes a couple of decades of growth to reach adulthood. And then it takes several more decades to reach the full maturity of wisdom. The love in us develops over time, according to a pattern that God has ordained.

@LeeWoofenden but you're not going to even try to climb the mountain to seek God until you have already responded in love. So what you are speaking of, that is the progression of understanding, comes before justification.

@Joshua The love that we start out with is a low-level love that mostly has to do with self-preservation and self-gratification. God harnesses that love through promised rewards and threatened punishments to form our behavior and basic character in a good way. And then, having formed our character and behavior externally, God leads us deeper, until we are doing good first from understanding and faith, and then from love for God and the neighbor.

It's all driven by love. But on our part, the love starts at a very low, self-centered level, and progresses from there step by step to the love that God ultimately wants us to develop, which is love for God above all, and love for our neighbor as ourselves.

@LeeWoofenden that is the same Aristotelian mistake permeates yours and medieval Catholic theology. you will never develop love for something that you hate simply by continuing to force yourself to do living acts to or for it.

Faith doesn't actually drive any of it. Rather, it is driven by love of various kinds, and happens through faith. Love is always the driving force. Faith is a conduit through which love operates. And good works are what happens when we are moved by love through faith.

it will simply serve to widen the gap and build more frustration and resentment. And will result in a hypocritical Faith.

@Joshua But we don't stay in the stage of acting out of obedience. We progress from there to acting from faith, or understanding, and from there to acting from love. It is a progression. If we stop climbing while we're still on the base of the mountain, we will never make it to the top. And God continually moves us forward if we allow him to.

@Joshua A young man (or woman) who does not emancipate himself from obedience to his father and mother, and from being under their responsibility, will never progress to emotional adulthood, even if he/she has reached physical adulthood. If as adults we're still acting out of obedience to our parents, we have failed to progress as human beings.

My youngest son largely made that progression while he was still a teenager, and still living at home. We did have a few house rules, primarily relating to his girlfriend. But we never had to impose anything on him or lay down the law. He took full responsibility for his own day-to-day live--school, homework, his job, and so on--without our having to say anything. He also knew the rules--which were not excessive--and willingly abided by them. We didn't have to worry about it.

Even though he is only one year into college, he has fully emancipated himself. He rents his own place, pays his own tuition and living expenses, and runs his own life. But if he didn't have the foundation of rules imposed upon him when he was younger, he would not have had the foundation to take responsibility for his own life, and be his own man now.

And though he didn't always understand or appreciate the rules when he was a child and a young teenager, he now understands and appreciates the way he was raised. And though he's not a touchy-feely type, he periodically tells me that he loves me. He is well aware that the way I raised him is a big part of the reason he is now able to live and enjoy his own life the way he wants to live it, out of his own inner love and motivation.

@LeeWoofenden But I think here, as usual you have moved beyond justification to our progressive sanctification. A process a Protestant would not deny. But I am going earlier and zooming in to the point at where we come to Faith and begin to set out. But our love, our faith, and our future are written and sealed first.

@Joshua We don't come to faith when we are born. There are many years of development before we reach the point where we can come to faith. All of those years are under God's providence. And all of them are part of our salvation--which is a process, not an event. The point at which we come to faith is one point in that overall process.

And at that point, where it all begins, we are saying it is by God's grace through Faith alone in Christ's work of love that we are sealed, justified, saved and promised future perfect sanctification in glorification upon his return.

Protestantism seems to confuse conversion with salvation. Conversion is the point at which we consciously accept God into our life. But our salvation was already being prepared during our life beforehand, and from the point of conversion we then begin to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

Of course, it is really God doing it from within. But if we don't work with God on it, God cannot bring it about in us.

@Joshua If you just took out the non-biblical "alone" I would agree with that statement.

@LeeWoofenden Wait! That reminds me of something... What do you think about the regeneration?

It continues to mystify me why Protestants feel the need to add "alone" to everything . . .

@LeeWoofenden I think you just summarized James :) If we aren't working on it then God never really did it, it's not true Faith founded in love. But we say if God does do it - we will. There is no "can't" for God.

@PaulVargas "Regeneration" is simply a Latin-derived word for "born again." It is through the process of regeneration, or being born again, that we are saved.

@PaulVargas See: Heaven, Regeneration, and the Meaning of Life on Earth

FWIW, Swedenborgians love the word "regeneration." I don't use it much because it's a big word when a diminutive one will suffice. But my wife, who is also a Swedenborgian, loves "regeneration." And since she actually wrote the first part of that article, how could I refuse? ;-)

@LeeWoofenden yes and as we've talked before I believe that our generation that being born again is not our sanctification. What is the moment immediately preceding our faith. It is when we can then see all that God has done and understand his love for us. Prior to being born again we cannot. I'm not entirely sure why you aren't just Catholic Lee :)

@PaulVargas However, the idea that it happens instantaneously is a common error in traditional Christian theology.

@Joshua Catholicism laid the foundation of doctrinal error upon which Protestantism built, starting with the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons.

Protestantism actually accepts most of the basics of Catholic theology. But it places its own major errors, including justification by faith alone, penal substitution, and among Calvinists, predestination, on that Catholic doctrinal foundation.

However, Catholicism at least believes that both faith and works are necessary for salvation. And on that point, Catholic theology is superior to Protestant theology.

Also, because of the practice of confession, as corrupt as it may have become during some parts of Catholic history, Catholics are generally more able to repent of their sins than Protestants are. And that is the necessary first step in salvation.

That's why John the Baptist, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples all began their preaching with "repentance for the forgiveness of sins."

@LeeWoofenden How many times I must to repent?

@PaulVargas Every time you sin.

@LeeWoofenden What if I sinned and I die before to repent?

If I got angry and I said some things...

@PaulVargas No single sin sends us to hell. It is our overall character as developed here on earth that determines that. None of us is perfect. But if our primary love and intent is to love God above all and love our neighbor as ourselves, then sins we commit in a moment of anger or weakness will not undo that.

@LeeWoofenden I'm wondering; Catholicism distinguishes between mortal and venial sins, at least in part because of 1 John 5:17b: "All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly." I'm wondering what, if anything, Swedenborgian theology has to say about this (it seems unlikely that it makes a formal distinction of the sort we do).

@LeeWoofenden By the way, what is your point of view about the election?

@MattGutting We don't use the words "mortal" and "venial." But we do recognize that there is a "sliding scale" of sins. Some are relatively mild, others are very serious. And everything in-between.

@LeeWoofenden That was more or less my guess.

@PaulVargas To reduce it to a slogan, God chooses all of us, and some of us accept it.

@PaulVargas You have to understand that from a Swedenborgian perspective, there is no "past" or "future" with God. God sees all things at once. So the whole idea of "predestination" is nonsensical.

Swedenborg said that if there is any such thing as predestination, it is that all people are predestined by God to heaven. But some people refuse that "predestination," and choose hell instead.

The Bible, however, often speaks in human terms and concepts.

@MattGutting Because we don't see salvation as either a mechanical or a judicial process, we're not big on precise classification of sins.

@MattGutting But, for example, when it comes to adultery we recognize a distinct difference between a man or woman who is seduced and commits adultery in a moment of passion or weakness, and then regrets it terribly afterwards, and a man or woman who has no regard whatsoever for marriage or faithfulness, and commits adultery believing that the rules don't apply, and s/he can do whatever the @$%^ s/he wants when it comes to his/her sex life.

@LeeWoofenden OK. Thanks.

@MattGutting A person who commits adultery from fixed will and intention in flagrant disregard of the commandment not to commit adultery cannot be saved, because his or her will is set and determined upon evil, and upon violating God's commandments.

@MattGutting But a person who commits adultery in a moment of passion, drunkenness, etc., and afterwards realizes how terribly wrong it was, and commits him- or herself to never doing it again, can be saved because s/he repents of the act, and at a deeper level, his/her will is not fixed on adultery and on violating God's commandments.

@MattGutting So that would be our general equivalent of "mortal" and "venial" sins. "Mortal" sins are sins committed from a will and intention fixed upon evil and on violating God's commandments. "Venial" sins are ones that we do stupidly or unthinkingly, realize that it is wrong and against God's will, and repent from, committing ourselves not to repeat them.

@LeeWoofenden That's not far off from our classification - mortal sins requiring grave violations of good, knowledge beforehand of the sinfulness of the action, and deliberate, unforced choice of the sinful action.

"If you love me then you'll keep my commandments."

I always found that a little odd to say. I think it shows that love in Jesus' time does not mean the same as we use it today.

@LeeWoofenden "I'm going to run to the store." Sometimes, most times, I don't literally mean run. I'm afraid that your example fails to make your point. Many statements seem plain and simple superficially can in fact be more complicated if you have an insight into the context. In the context of an American with a car who lives five miles from the store, "run to the store" means "a quick trip via car to get only a few things."

This same common sense interpretative method must also be applied to ancient texts. The only meaning of any value is the one the author meant.

Now I suppose a thousand years from now, when there's no cars or stores, some archaeologist might read an ancient note that says "Ran to the store, back in 20" and find himself utterly confused at its meaning, likely only concluding that the note's author literally ran somewhere shortly after writing the note.

So not only is he able to make only a superficial interpretation, he's also wrong.

In steps the hard process of advanced exegesis. With a high knowledge of word use for the time and the history of the era, and the life style of the common person of the area, we just might conclude that "ran" in this context may actually mean "drive in an automobile" or "pedal on a bike" or "took a taxi". The only thing of real consequence, is that the note's intended recipient probably knew with a high degree of accuracy what actually happened, and also didn't care.

Then there's the mysterious "back in 20", an entirely different conversation about how ancient cultures expressed passages of time.

In short, Lee, you failed to make your point. You know full well that the utterly literal reading of any ancient text can easily be a dubious interpretation, yet you continually seem to require that of your opponents in these debates.

@LeeWoofenden And all this crap is symbolism and unjustified metaphorical interpretation. This is not the same thing, but it is something I've seen you do to Genesis. Why is it that you demand some part of the Bible be read utterly literally, while another not? A charge I've also heard you put against young earth creationists.

I thought I saw this one already posted in here:

> And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. - Heb. 10:10

That sounds a lot like holiness was imparted to us because Jesus was sacrificed.

Can you tell me why a basic reading of this verse does not imply that Jesus' death covered some kind of punishment meant for us?

It seems to me the more strenuous reading is one that does not see it as strong support for penal substitution.

There's also Eph 5:2 and Heb. 7:27. Combined with "wages of sin is death, but the gift of god is eternal life in Christ" and I think we have a strong case for the penal substitution understanding of the necessity of Christ's death.

Without this understanding, you leave a massive void. Why did Christ die then, if it wasn't to justify me before God?

Never mind that I think penal substitution is very stupid on it's own. It should make any moral person wonder, why can't God just forgive? He has to kill someone, even if it's not the offender. Really??? That's strange behavior. And we're apparently supposed to mimic it too.

I would not accept a father offering up his son to suffer for someone else's crimes. I would reject the offer, and the father as a morally reprehensible person.

And I would reject the offer of a father offering himself for the crimes of his son. I would not judge that father as morally reprehensible, but certainly as misguided. The crimes of any person are his own.

And, the ironic thing is that penal substitution violates God's own law:

> Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin. - Deut. 24:16

So, I'm with you, Lee. I believe penal substitution is a stupid theology. An evil one, even. But I don't see the gospel making sense without it.

I used to simply explained that God had unalterable characteristics. One of them is a sense justice. I would argue that God's sense of justice must be satisfied, hence, Christ's death was necessary. And I just kind of ignored the fact that this is stupid. God is crazy if he literally is unable to forgive, yet, the Bible insist he can and does, but then actually, no he only seems to, having pushed the punishment onto Jesus instead.

It really is a very stupid theology.

To which Paul insists:

> The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

lol. How gnostic. "you'd understand if you were already in our club."

And since it's leading up to it, perishing? Perishing from what? I don't feel the pressure of sin, like it's some kind of illness. I have a fever when I'm sick. I don't feel sin. It's foolishness because you need to convince me that sin is real first, which is also stupid, especially since the litany of sins in the bible seems rather arbitrary at times.

And oddly obsessive with controlling sex.

@LeeWoofenden When Jesus comes out of my mouth and commands, "You three birds go fly into the sky." The birds do not fly into the sky by any works that I do, only by the works that God does. The only thing that I do is believe that God hears Jesus. And the birds do fly into the skies.

I personally believe it's a control mechanism. Pick out some characteristic inherent to human psyche (e.g. the drive for sexual interaction) and put highly restrictive rules on it. That way, people naturally feel incapable to meet the criteria. And then label that inability as sin due to depravity, something which only God can help you with, via the church and the priests.

@fredsbend I'm really glad you gave a down to earth interpretation of most denomination perspective. And in that perspective penal substitution has the result, that indeed you come to. Therefore hear it from the metaphorical perspective, that it then makes sense.

First there's a metaphorical connection Jesus as the Son of God.

@fredsbend Opponents of penal substitution would be saying that the salvation is more along the lines of a ransom, or that we're saved from the consequences of our sin, but not active punishment. Sacrifices and even substitutes are both compatible with that. It's the penal aspect that is rejected.

God speaks words, and these words represent Jesus.

Hence your John 1:1 and others saying God is the word.

Now the Son of Man likewise are the words that come out of a mans mouth.

Son of God, God's mouth.

Son of Man, Man's mouth.

Therefore the son of man needs to die.

in similarity to how the Son of God died.

When the son of man dies, they get "born into the breath".

@Decrypted You make no sense at all.

God spoke, then he killed his word.

In similarity, Man is supposed to kill his words.

@fredsbend That's talking about executions, which doesn't apply to voluntary substitutes.

"...what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them." (Matthew 15:11b)

Therefore, it must "stop coming out of the mouth".

Born of the spirit, that's a nice way of saying "shut up".

And many times he said listen.

Its amazing what happens when you do.

Unless you follow me, meaning follow the example of the Son of God, and kill the "Son of Man" there is no "living sacrifice".

@fredsbend If penal substitution is all there is, then it probably would be pretty stupid. But it's only one model of the atonement, and you need more to have the full picture. You're right that it focuses on a very abstract and kind of impersonal sort of guilt and justice. I guess one part of it is that it does explain why not all are saved. If God forgave without requiring justice then the most logical conclusion would be universalism