www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West what is grace?

St. Augustine of course addresses these issues thoroughly, as you well know, so I can only refer you back to his writings. It is important not to caricature Augustine but to present him in the complexity of his thought!

Ultimately, of course, there is no answer to these questions--unless of course one chooses to go down the dark road of double predestination (which the elder Augustine appears to have travelled) or the bright road of universalism (as Gregory Nyssen appears to have followed). The mystery must be maintained.

Does an unredeemed sinner have this power? Are you saying that all men, baptised and unbaptised, converted and unconverted, are now incorporated into Christ and thus participate in his saving assent to the Father? If you are saying this, please show us which of the Fathers teach this. And if this is the case, then how do we avoid universalism? You see, we end up closer than you know!

Or has the contemporary Eastern Church now become Pelagian? Of course, I know that it has not; but I'm not clear if it has distinguished clearly its form of synergism from semi-Pelagianism. The Western Church did not follow the godly Cassian in his semi-Pelagianism and for good reasons, yet some Orthodox continue to quote him as if he has provided the "Orthodox" solution.

The Augustinian, of course, recognizes that no one is saved apart from his will and that anyone who rejects Christ is fully responsible for this rejection. But the bottom line is that, apparently, in your conditionalist formulation of the Gospel, the sinner is ultimately confronted with the need to save himself. God has done his part; but now it's up to the sinner to do his infintessimally small part. But from the perspective of the sinner, such a part is not small at all, especially when the sinner knows the depths of his own self-will. The unconditional Gospel is no Gospel at all, because all it can do is invite. But it is the good news of God's unconditional grace that liberates the sinner and gives precisely the ability to respond in faith and to cooperate with God's grace! A godly synergism is dependent on grace.

And so the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus declared: Does our Gospel preaching lead to faith, trust, and joy in God's gift of salvation; or does it thrust sinners back onto themselves to save themselves? This is what really matters! I'm much less interested in having a nice systematic theology with all the pieces tied together, than in the preaching of the Gospel that truly brings salvation to sinners.

The ironic thing is that we Western Christians are so often accused by Orthodox believers as being excessively intellectual and systematic (scholastic)--but when it comes to the mystery of grace, it appears that we are the ones embracing mystery and paradox. :-)

Fr. Kimel:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I am well aware of Augustine's attempts to answer the questions I posed in my last post. I asked them of you because I consider his answers to be fundamentally inadequate, tending toward a fatalism that falsifies the essential openness of both man and God. I acknowledge that Augustine desperately sought to preserve man's free will and consequently his responsibility. But the overall thrust of his anthropology is that fallen man, outside of God's grace, does not have real freedom to choose the good or reject the bad. Incidentally, it is this idea – that some men are denied or exist outside of God's grace – that is at the root of the problem and occupies the main distinction between Augustine and the Greeks; again, it comes down to his understanding of original sin, the damage it caused, and its effects on the human race. At any rate, I thought perhaps you might have arrived at some better answers.

No one in the East ever denied the ubiquity or necessity of God's grace, nor did I in my previous posts. As such, I'm not sure why you quoted Professor Oden's citation from the Council of Ephesus. Would you like me to throw quotations from the Fathers back at you, asserting that man must freely respond to and cooperate with the divine will? So be it.

“Because although to be called and to be cleansed was of grace, yet, when called and clothed in clean garments, to continue keeping them so, this is of the diligence of them that are called. The being called was not of merit, but of grace.” (Chrysostom, Hom. on Matt. 69.2)

“For they contend that, had God wanted to, he could have compelled those who were stubborn to accept the Gospel preaching. But where then would have been their free will? Wherein would virtue lie? Wherein the praise for those who had triumphed? It is a mark only of inanimate or irrational creatures to be inducted by another's will to do his bidding.” (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 31)

You asked: “Does an unredeemed sinner have this power? Are you saying that all men, baptised and unbaptised, converted and unconverted, are now incorporated into Christ and thus participate in his saving assent to the Father? If you are saying this, please show us which of the Fathers teach this.”

The Greek Fathers teach that all men, baptized and unbaptized, have the power to discern right from wrong and have the capacity to do good. This power or grace comes from God and works in all men by virtue of their very humanity. (Grace does not overcome nature but perfects it; the very idea that grace is some kind of add-on is foreign to the patristic phronema.) No one lives outside of God's grace. Before Christ, even with this great power to live well or perhaps even without sin – Athanasius, in fact, implies in one of his works that both the Prophet Jeremiah and John the Baptizer led sinless lives – man could neither reconcile himself to God nor achieve deification.

Christ was needed to reconcile humanity to God and to open up for us the possibility of, or the choice for, deification. The unbaptized, under the New Covenant, are free riders, if you will – the chasm between God and man has been overcome by Jesus Christ, the true Theos-anthropos. “He enlightens every man who comes into the world” (John 1.9). Now, whether they will take advantage of that is entirely up to them (or their parents). In order to tap into the power and potential for deification, they need to be baptized, to be sealed by the Holy Spirit, to become member's of Christ's Body. As Chrysostom notes in his gloss on the passage I cited above, many continue to be unenlightened because they “willfully” refuse to open their eyes to receive that Light (Hom. on John 8.1).

On the Eastern Christian understanding, universal salvation, while not inevitable, remains a possibility. So does universal condemnation.

What do you mean by “semi-Pelagianism”? I am unable to answer your question about how – if at all – the Orthodox distinguish themselves form Cassian's position, because I do not comprehend what this essentially meaningless label – created by the Reformers – is supposed to mean. If by it you mean the patristic and scriptural teaching that both God's grace and man's free response to that grace, working together, are necessary for salvation, then you might as well call this the Orthodox position.

Are you further suggesting, by the term “conditional Gospel,” that we men are not called to respond? That we are not asked to receive God's grace? That we are not called to grow in divine life, to realize the likeness of God in us? I'm not sure how to respond to this, except to say: it is conditional. To say that it is not is to render meaningless its exhortations to righteousness, justice, holiness, and – most important – love.

Lastly, you state: “The ironic thing is that we Western Christians are so often accused by Orthodox believers as being excessively intellectual and systematic (scholastic)--but when it comes to the mystery of grace, it appears that we are the ones embracing mystery and paradox.”

Touch�. But (a) I'm not one of those Orthodox Christians who dismiss scholasticism as unchristian (I think Thomas should be an honorary Greek Father); and (b) I don't think insisting on the need for both God's grace and man's free response strips the process of its inherent mystery or paradox.

In the end, grace – the presence of the divine spark in each of us – makes us fully human, gives us our freedom, but never limits the need for us to become fully human except through our free, personal cooperation with God's will.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Fr Kimel:

I have read some here and there in this discussion with some interest. I thank you for sticking up for Augustine. Augustine has many critics who attribute positions to him which he never took. Most who read him fail to give him - context within his times - and so they do not understand - Augustine. Instead they construct some caricature of Augustine and attribute the failings of this caricature - to Augustine himself.

Augustine lived and wrote during a time in which a shift was taking place from early Eastern cosmogony to Greek and Roman like philosophy (to solidify along Aristotle). Today we have further progressed to a subconscious use of a Newtonian and Darwinian like philosophy (for that is our major and socialy habitual view of the world and how it works - a view known but rejected by our biblical predecessors). For those who know the difference in expression between the two (cosmogony and philosophy) and wish to backtrack from philosophy to cosmogony - Augustine stands as a wonderful bridge and translator between these two �worlds�. Which was exactly what he was doing.

It has always marveled me of how the student turns to condemn the teacher once he has learned all he can from the teacher. He who was once a marvel and guiding star - suddenly becomes a man of �dangerous� errors. Every teacher has hopes his student will further develop and evolve and sharpen the body of knowledge - but too often it is like Greek mythology where the son turns to dominate the father thinking that this is proof that he is better than his father-teacher. Origen comes to my mind.

A basic problem with defining grace - is having its context within Providence and pre-destination (as was noted). Thrown into the soup - is freewill. As has been noted.

Theologians have long struggled with the concept of �grace�. In a sense, they struggle to place a round peg into a square hole. The concept of grace only works well within a �cosmogony� like mindset - which has a very different view of the operation of creation.

A key item, is pre-destination.

St. Paul (I believe it was his epistle) describes predestination somewhat. It should be a flag to us that we have not understood Paul very well - when we have to get so semantic - and twist so may intellectual concepts - while trying unsuccessfully to work it all out.

If one understand pre-destination as St. Paul does (in the way Paul does) grace makes all the sense in the world. It essentially means that a - way or circumstance of condition - comes to be. We can say the �way� is provided� brought into existence.

In reality - it is a very simple thing and easy to understand - when the context is in the ball park.

I will not get into a deep explanation here - the space is too short and I imagine I irritate plenty of people with my lengthy posts.

The general and current concept of pre-destination (put in simple terms) involves God - having foreknowledge - and making some decision and putting that into the works - before sequential time - and that decision comes to fruition - within the framework of time and history - and His mind is unknown to us along the way. Essentially it can be said that the view is that some people may be selected before birth (or even before the world began) to be saved and some to be lost. And with that idea now comes the problem of - freewill - how can man have free will if all was determined before �the world began�? Of course there are variations on this.

It is a monument to our pride that years ago - we did not say �You know.. We have struggled with this forever and it never seems to really work out well - maybe we have misunderstood Paul?�

It reminds me of Rubic�s Cube - which - after much toil and effort - seems to be just about all done but for these last few pieces. Instead of saying �Look - these just do not fit� we tend to say �Ahh� how might we change the definition of these last few bits - so that - while they will still not fit - we may argue that they really do and it all depends on how you look at it�.

In essence - they are two ways to look at creation. I will generalize them below.

A) That God initiated some sort of big bang - millions of years ago - and that developed along the set laws of physics and such to be continually unfolding as if like dominos falling. It supposes a very mechanical universe that operates by laws - making the present and the future an inevitable result of how the dominos fell in the past. God, is in this view, regulated to a state of waiting and watching. It is the function of prayers (or his mercy) that He occasionally gets involved and does something miraculous (interrupting the general flow of things). There are variations of this. But essentially it supposes God having created a self-preserving and self-sufficient - creation that runs without his direct intervention.

In the Hebrew and Greek - this type of �world government� is called - fate or destiny. In Christian thought this view of the world has a �fallen� context. In the Hebrew and Greek (Old Testament and New) this is the �world� which shall �come to an end�.

In point of fact - the view above - is a view which is well represented by general Greek mythology. - and it is not surprising that this is the �common view� underlying most of the West in as much as Greek thought was a major driving factor in the development of �the West�.

Theologians under the sway of this view will either try to interpreter Genesis in a literal way (insisting that the days were real days) or dismiss Genesis as compiled myth, or simply see Genesis as a mystery we are not meant to figure out.


B) The second view - creation (coming to-be) - is a right here and right now thing. The �world� and its events are primarily - experiential. Reality - is the human experience of what comes to-be out of (or from) all contingents. This is the view Genesis takes (in the original Hebrew). And it is a common stance of thought under cosmology.

This view supposes that the - now - this moment - is all that exists. The present moment is always - coming to-be. The situations of life and its events - come to-be moment by moment - from out of all possible contingents - based upon the immediate decision of God who is aware of totally aware of out inner decisions of free will.

Under this concept the past is really - contingent upon the present. The future is contingent not upon the past - but totally upon the present. To mail this down better and remove our habitual tendency to say �how can the things of the past change??� we should rather say that - our experience of the past is contingent upon the present (reminding you that this is an existential of experiential view).

For example - the other concept (A) would interpret say, the moment of someone�s conversion at age 23 as = the moment of conversion was destined before his birth or before time began, but only came to-be upon the day and hour that was preset. For it.

Concept (B) would explain the same thing like this = while a person is consciously living separated from God, all his past experiences (their meaning and predestination) are now consistent with that experience. If a person is right now united to God - then all past experiences (their meaning and predestination) is now consistent with that.

Meaning (the vital part of experience) and predestination - are not exterior and material. They are spiritual (mental) qualities that may be associated mentally with material events - but are not dependent upon or thr results of - material events.

This all seems very complicated only because we have the - habit - of view (A).
Let me display it a different way.

Clear the kitchen table. Now take out you box of 1000 dominos you have left over from your last big party with elderly Jamaicans. Begin on the left and place dominos in the standing position one after the other - in a straight line to all across to the right end of the table. Place the last domino on the edge so that when it is hit by the one before it - it will fall off the table.

Now - imagine that you tipped the very first domino, and it tips the next and so on. What happens? They all fall one after the other and the last domino on the right - falls off the table. You may say that this is how predestination works. When you tip the first domino - each tips in its own sequence of time - to eventually fall the last domino. IN this way - you have set up a line of - predestination.

Now - place yourself at the center of the table - with the line of dominos stretching from left to right. Lean to the left and tip the first domino, which will tips, the next, which will tip the next and so on. You have begun your chain of predestination which will inevitably tips the last domino to fall off the table. But this time, before it gets to the end - and as you watch the chain of falling progress - take you hand and, somewhere in the middle, swipe away a few dominos so that when the action of tipping gets to that point - the wave has nothing to hit and the chain reaction ceases. The far right domino - still stands. It has not fallen off the table because nothing has tipped.

You have now demonstrated - the interaction of - free will. And by your free will action - you have changed the meaning and the destiny - of the past.

Again�. The meaning of the past and the �orientation� of predestination - are entirely and totally contingent upon the present - because these are not �external� things but are instead - experience within the - now.

The essential and important aspect of any event or �thing� is its meaning to God and its meaning to the human experiencing it. Matter.. Material.. Time� etc� are the vehicle of this �meaning� and has no value isolated from that - meaning bound to the experience.

All things and events which a person experiences are the shell of this spiritual (mental) communication between the person and God. God - is always totally aware of this communication and his intended meaning (by which he efforts to form us through our experiences) but it is that the person may not necessarily be conscious of the communication.

Providence (the coming to-be of all things and all-events) is a now thing. It is contingent upon the decision of God within the immediate moment of knowing our hearts and minds. It is contingent because our will (free) is contingent.

In closing� because of the power of habit and our habit of taking view (A) - some will say here �Yes.. But how can the past change - an earthquake took place on May 14th 1958 - and how could that change?� to which I would answer �You are saying that (A) is true and (B) is true together - you are trying to make them both fit together. Understanding how B should replace A - may come in time. In the mean time - you can revisit what Paul says about predestination and have a better understanding of the context that - Paul - is using.

In the Hebrew and Greek usage - this - is the "world without end" - that is - an expereince of the the "world" as it is governed and produced by Providence. It is the saints - experience - (which experience we call the 'world') which changes from expereincing the world as governed by the laws of fate and destiny - to an expereince of living Providence and its immediate governing of all things and all events.

Also - now - we can understand Agustines two "cities". May we all come to live within the internal 'city' governed by Providence.

Please forgive my typos. It is my 'signature' (hehe).

-ray

RayK and Fr. Kimel:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I resent the implication that I have somehow presented a caricature of Augustine's theology. Please provide some textual evidence to support this claim. Failing that, I will consider this criticism to be groundless.

Nothing Ray has said detracts from my earlier posts. No one doubts divine providence / divine foreknowlege. The fact is this: God has accepted real limits in offering man the opportunity to accept or reject His offer of salvation.

In Christ,
Theophilos

I think we have at least demonstrated, in response to Theodore's initial post, that the Western Church does not teach a Pelagian view of grace. All is of grace.

Theophilus, we are both aware that in discussions such as these, one tends to paint with a broad brush, so please do not get upset by my intimation that you may have done so. I am well aware that I too am guilty of the same fault.

Where I think you have not presented Augustine fairly is in Augustine's agreement with the assertion that our freedom of will is integral of human nature. You even used the word "fate" to describe Augustine's theories; but of course Augustine was at pains to differentiate his understanding of the sovereignty of grace from all pagan theories of fate. (And you ascribed this description of Augustine to Pelikan. Does Pelikan actually describe Augustine's theory of grace as a theory of fate?)

I do not have the competence to travel down your description of Augustine's theology point by point. But let me cite just one point. In one of your earlier posts you stated that by Adam's sin humanity has been brought down to the level of the beasts. On this, Pelikan cites the following passage: My major point all along is that St Augustine's thought is complex, difficult, profound, and not easy to characterize. It developed over time, as he struggled to address both Pelagius & Company and later John Cassian & Company. His penetrating intellect appears to have taken him into some errors (did he or did he not teach double predestination at one point--scholars disagree); but he remains the Doctor of Grace who saw these matters more deeply than any father preceding him.

You pit Augustine against the Fathers; but surely this is inaccurate. Augustine's writings on grace need to be placed in the context of the Pelagian heresy, a heresy that the Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and Chrysostom did not have to address. But Augustine did have to address it, and the basic thrust of his teaching was ultimately accepted and dogmatized by the Western Church, as expressed in the canons of the Council of Orange [creeds.net] , which was solemnly ratified by Pope Boniface II. Has the Eastern Church ever officially responded to the canons of this synod? One curious thing I learned this morning is that the impetus to reach dogmatic definition over against semi-Pelagianism (a term apparently coined in the late 16th century during the Molinist controversy) came from a Scythian monk named Johannes Maxentius. (Was Sythia Western or Eastern rite?) who was in Constantinople when he was confronted by quotations from Faustus of Riez. Maxentius then apparently began a one man crusade to have Faustus's views condemned. The eventual result was the Council of Orange. See the discussion in the Catholic Encyclopedia [newadvent.org] .

On the internet today I discovered a quotation from a Greek theologian Athanasios Frangopoulos. The following was attributed to him: Is Frangoupolos unrepresentative or does he perhaps represent a legitimate minority interpretation within Orthodoxy?

In any case, I certainly did not mean to insult you, Theophilus, but to summon us to a recognition of the importance of St Augustine's teachings in the life of the Church catholic and to a recognition of the complexity and paradoxicalness of his thought.

Does the Eastern Church really want to say that the Second Council of Orange was heretical?

Fr. Kimel:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I, too, apologize if I have offended.

Pace Pelikan, note De Civitate Dei 12.22 on Adam: "But he created man's nature as a kind of mean between the angels and teh beasts, so that if he submitted to his Creator, as to his true sovereign Lord, and observed his instructions with duftiful obedience, he should poass over into fellowship with the angels... but if he used his free will in arrogance and disobedience, and thus offended God, HE SHOULD LIVE LIKE THE BEASTS, under sentence of death, and should be the slave of his desires, and destined after death for eternal punishment."

I absolutely agree, however, that Augustine certainly did not deny that the image of God in man remained after the Fall. He differed from the Greek Fathers in the extent to which he thought the image had been darkened.

As for understanding Augustine in the context of the Pelagian controversy: Fine. But let's also look at his response to the Donatists and to Manicheism. You will find his "more extreme" ideas on grace even here. I also happen to think that the Augustine could have responded to Pelagius, Julian of Eclanum, and the others in a way that more faithfully reflected the mind of the Church.

Is Augustine a Father of the Church? Absolutely. One of the most brilliant. One of the most articulate. One of the hardest-working. I've read the Confessions at least five times in my young life -- it continues to inspire me in a way I can hardly describe. That doesn't mean, however, that I find his views on original sin, human nature, grace, and free will to be entirely without error.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Mmm� I did not have you in mind when I wrote this.

You must be aware that there are plenty of people who have written books and articles of criticism of Augustine and many of these are in more important places than our discussion board. These are what I had in mind.

Discussion - debate - please do not take things in a personal way.

If I had meant you - I would have named you. I am not shy.

As it is, I did not read any of your posts fully that I might be certain of your views on Agustine.

-ray

Ahh... perhaps Theodore mistook my post for some attack upon him - because I am essentially off topic... it appears that Pelagian is the real topic of this thread. I don't know much about that.

Sorry everyone.

-ray

RayK

Glory to Jesus Christ!

1. Since you used the term "caricature," which Fr. Kimel directed at my posts before you, I assumed you were speaking to me. In addition, it's not the first time you questioned my reading of Augustine as "out of context" -- see thread entitled, I believe, "Did Augustine Split the Church?" a few months back.

By the way, I never take debate or discussion personally -- except when someone implicitly questions my intelligence or competence or veracity in interpreting a text or texts WITHOUT substantiating that claim by reference to the text or texts.

2. I am not Theodore.

In Christ,
Theophilos

I will probably make all these mistakes again. They will ne unintentional and in a good spirit of dicussion and debate.

-ray

Dear Friends,

I think that when all is said and done, we can agree that there can be more than one tradition on grace than that represented by St Augustine.

St Augustine is indeed honoured as a saint in the East, even though the East doesn't always see him as being "100% Orthodox" on every point .

What began this thread was the thought that perhaps the Western Catholic Church, basing itself on "works" was somehow against "grace."

In fact, if one may "fault" Augustine, he can only be faulted for seeing the prevenient need for grace that is necessary to renew the depraved and fallen human nature in the aftermath of Original Sin.

I do believe that Augustine's greatest contribution to the Church was his "Confessions" and his commentary on the Psalms.

Alex

Ahhh, but here is the rub. It's one thing to disagree with the private opinion of one of the great Fathers of the Church (though I always assume that the the Father is correct and I am wrong, either until proven otherwise or until my own intellectual pride goes out of control ). Few followed Augustine in his extreme views on predestination. But it's quite another thing to disagree with one of the great Fathers of the Church on a point that has become dogma, at least dogma in the Western Church. Thus Canon 5 of the Council of Orange declares: St Augustine did not foist this understanding of prevenient grace upon the Church, nor did he invent it. Rather, prevenient grace was ultimately understood as a necessary corollary to the Church's rejection of Pelagius. To disagree with this dogma, therefore, is not only to disagree with St. Augustine but with the entirety of the Western Church after the Council of Orange, during which time it was in communion with the Eastern churches.

What was driving the Church in its rejection of Semipelagianism? It is not clear to me at all that it was an inappropriately negative view on original sin that was the primary impetus. It could just as well be that the Western Church's view on original sin flows instead from a deep apprehension of the sovereignty of God's grace, particularly as this is expressed in the letters of St. Paul.

Does this sovereignty of grace interfere with the freedom of man? On the contrary, it establishes it. Let me reiterate what I said earlier. God is not a part of the cosmos; he transcends it utterly. Consequently, divine causality, however it is to be understood, does not compete against creaturely causality. God can create faith in the Virgin Mary's heart through the word of St. Gabriel, and Mary can at the same time freely decide to accept the angelic message. Her freedom as human being has not been compromised, because divine action does work on the same level as does creaturely action.

In any case, as I have tried to express in my previous posts, what is crucial is the preaching of the Gospel. In the final analysis, when the sinner is confronted with a lifetime of failure and sin and is overwhelmed with despair about his ability to love God with all of his heart, what is your message to this person? Are you going to tell him that the burden of salvation is on his own shoulders, or are you going to tell him that Jesus, as humanity's high priest and mediator, has already obeyed and fulfilled the Law on his behalf and that this perfect obedience is already his through the eucharistic gift of our Lord's body and blood, eaten and drunk in faith? What does the Gospel authorize you to say to this poor sinner?

Are we saved by our faith, or are we saved by the faithfulness of Christ?

Dogma in the Western Church is the same as dogma in the Eastern Churches and vice versa. There are no dogmas peculiar to the West or the East, only universal dogmas.

I'm sure you know this, Fr. Kimel. I am just clearing it up for the record.

Logos Teen

I have a question.

If we only have faith because of God's bestowal of grace upon us, does faith in its germination take no effort on our part? Why would God only grant the grace of faith to certain individuals, while denying it to others?

Logos Teen

Have you ever fallen in love?

Do you trust your best friend?

When Jesus heals the blind man, how much effort did the blind man have to put into it to make the miracle happen?

If you would see the kingdom of God, you must be born from above.

Who can explain the mystery of faith? We fall in love with God! We find that we trust the promises of Christ Jesus! Our hearts are filled with love and we discover new possibilities for our lives.

But of course, we are summoned to to total faith, total obedience, total discipleship. God's grace calls forth from us everything.

Work as if everything depended on you. Pray as if everything depended on God.

When does the doctrine of prevenient grace come into play in Christian life?

1) It reminds me that God has accomplished everything for me and in me and that at no point can I claim any reward.

2) It encourages me to pray for the conversion of others.

3) It encourages me to pursue evangelistic mission.

4) It encourages me to persevere in my faith, trusting that my salvation always is in the trustworthy hands of my Lord. It directs my attention at all times to my Lord and my Savior, not to myself.

Speculative question that we probably should not even be asking.

In Christ we know that God loves all of humanity and wills all human beings to come to him.

Therefore, we are summoned to by our Lord to preach the Gospel to all people and make disciples.

Once I begin asking, "Why doesn't God give faith to everyone?" I have stepped outside the circle of faith and am now lost in speculation. This is similar to the question that was put to Jesus about how many would be saved. He turned the question back on the questioner and told him to strive to enter by the narrow door. (Did I get that story right? I'm too tired to look for it in my New Testament. )