Happy Chanukah!

[SPC]

I make a point of specifically wishing all my Jewish friends a Merry Christmas.




Well, I would if I had Jewish friends. I guess I'll just go eat a BLT bagel

Go suck a Kosher sausage.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

1. do Jews go to Hell if they do not accept Christ?

Those (Jewish or not) who do not "accept Christ" are judged on the basis of what light they have.

Well, then they are truly in bad shape, for they’ll have no luck finding any light apart from Jesus Christ:

John 1:4 "In him was life, and that life was the light of men."

...

4. is Christ the only path to salvation?

Yes....I believe Jesus is the true path.  But does that mean those who do not follow Jesus are automatically damned?  (This is where I will frustrate and anger the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians.) No. Again, Lewis is instructive...

Is frustrating and angering the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians some sort of stamp of approval to you? So, that, on one hand you find comfort in the acceptance of Lewis and on the other hand you find comfort in the rejection of the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians?

And how is Lewis instructive?!  And, why bother to quote anyone?  Doesn't your bible give clear instruction on which paths lead to salvation?

JSJ, I think your frustration and anger is directed at the clarity of the bible, not the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians.  Isn't that why you find it necessary to quote Lewis and not the bible? 

I myself have read and reread the bible, including the New Testament, and I have yet to read a single passage that claims a path to salvation apart from accepting Jesus Christ.

In fact, I find Jesus' own statement on the matter quite clear:

John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

So, if you don't mind, I think I'll trust my salvation, and the salvation of anyone else, to the testimony of Jesus Christ, and not to the testimony of Lewis.  For it is written:

1John 5:9-12 "We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."

So, let me parse that passage and you and Lewis can tell me where I jumped the tracks...the passage means that God’s word trumps the word of Lewis.  It also means that God’s word trumps the word of JSJ, jmfcst, and the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians.  And anyone that doesn’t believe in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, has made God out to be a liar because he has not believed God’s testimony concerning Jesus.  And God’s testimony, which is found in the heart of anyone who has accepted the Gospel, is that God has given us eternal life, and this eternal life is found in Jesus, so that he who has Jesus has eternal life, and HE WHO DOES NOT HAVE JESUS CHRIST DOES NOT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.

Sounds crystal clear to me, for that is exactly the testimony that is in my heart.  But maybe I need to read Lewis so that what is clear can become muddled so that it becomes politically correct to the world and takes away from the clarity and simplicity that is found in the One who found me, even Jesus Christ.  In him is the only hope, the only truth, the only light, the only way, the only eternal life, the only God.

But, since my interpretation isn't loved by the world, then I must be doing something wrong, for we all know that the world loved Jesus Christ to death.

[JSojourner]

Hi Jm, we've been swamped here -- power outage, holidays and stuff...so I am just now getting back to you.

I think you and I are just going to have to differ.

Based on your interpretation of the scripture, anyone who has not been "saved", "born again" or baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ is damned.  That would include, I presume, Native Americans who never heard the Gospel...billions of Chinese, Africans, Arabs and Asian who never heard the Gospel...billions of babies and children who died before "making a decision for Christ".

If that's what you're saying -- then you bet we disagree.  But as I frequently do, I may have misunderstood you.  Could you clarify?  What happens to a child or an adult who have never accepted Jesus Christ as their "personal Lord and Savior" -- thinking specifically of the billions who never had a chance to respond to the Gospel message?

Keep in mind, I'm not even talking about the pre-Christian era Patriarchs and others.  I am talking about those who, after Pentecost ushered in the Church Age, either never heard the Gospel and died.  Or heard it and could not understand because of handicaps, imparities or language barriers? 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

JSJ,

I noticed you offered no scripture to back up your viewpoint…could it be because it doesn’t come from scripture?

And, no, I am not including babies under the cloud of condemnation.  There is nothing in scripture that states babies have the ability to sin.  And I think your inclusion of them in this argument is to take focus off of those who have rejected Jesus.

As to American Natives and everyone else who has not heard the gospel…If they are already saved, then what is the purpose of preaching the Gospel in the first place?  If they were already saved, then the preaching of the Gospel is actually putting their salvation at risk….which makes a complete mockery of the preaching of the Gospel.

You claim that adults who haven’t heard the Gospel have an excuse, but scripture doesn’t:

Rom 1:18 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

So, you say certain men have an excuse, Paul says they are without excuse…I’ll think I’ll side with Paul on this one.

Also, Paul goes on to state that those without the word will perish without the word:

Rom 2:12 “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.”

...which again makes repentance a requirement, not just belief.

---

As for those who have had the Gospel preached to them and do not believe:

Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

---

So, let me ask you a scriptural question:  Where does the NT state that there is any path to salvation apart from Jesus Christ?  Becaise I have yet to find one.  Instead, I find statements like:

Acts 4:12 “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

[JSojourner]

JSJ,

I noticed you offered no scripture to back up your viewpoint…could it be because it doesn’t come from scripture?

And, no, I am not including babies under the cloud of condemnation.  There is nothing in scripture that states babies have the ability to sin.  And I think your inclusion of them in this argument is to take focus off of those who have rejected Jesus.

As to American Natives and everyone else who has not heard the gospel…If they are already saved, then what is the purpose of preaching the Gospel in the first place?  If they were already saved, then the preaching of the Gospel is actually putting their salvation at risk….which makes a complete mockery of the preaching of the Gospel.

You claim that adults who haven’t heard the Gospel have an excuse, but scripture doesn’t:

Rom 1:18 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

So, you say certain men have an excuse, Paul says they are without excuse…I’ll think I’ll side with Paul on this one.

Also, Paul goes on to state that those without the word will perish without the word:

Rom 2:12 “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.”

...which again makes repentance a requirement, not just belief.

---

As for those who have had the Gospel preached to them and do not believe:

Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

---

So, let me ask you a scriptural question:  Where does the NT state that there is any path to salvation apart from Jesus Christ?

Acts 4:12 “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Since we're asking questions, is God good? Is God love? Is God just?

Is it just to damn some African native or American Indian because he or she never heard the message of Jesus?  From AD 33 or so until 1492, a lot of people died.  And after the Gospel came to these shores, a lot more died -- still having never heard.  So according to you, they are burning in the fires of hell for all eternity.  Just because the missionaries didn't get to them fast enough.

You ask what the point is of preaching the Gospel if they are already saved.  GREAT question.  If you've been cured of a horrendous disease yet aren't aware of it, isn't it likely life would change dramatically if someone came along and told you the good news?  A person can be very well in reality, and still live and behave as though they are dying. 

Of course, if one believes the whole point of Jesus' coming to earth was simply to provide men with a fire escape from Hell and get them into Heaven -- then there's a much bigger difference in philosophy than our debate about who are the Saints and who are the "ain'ts".

Now, as to babies -- you've missed the point entirely.  Unless you don't believe in the doctrine of original sin.  Are we born in sin? Do we have a sin nature at birth or is it acquired over time?  If you believe that we are born sinners, then how can a sin-stained human being enter the perfect and holy presence of God?  Adam's sin has eternally separated all humankind from the perfection of God.  If babies are exempt from original sin, at what point do children become responsible for sin and accountable for it?

So the infant who dies goes to Heaven.  But the six year old is damned?  The 11 year old burns in Hell's flames? 

You can think all you want that I am trying to distract you or change the subject by bringing children into the equation, but I believe it's fair game.  As the parent of an eight year old, I have a vested interest. 

[bullmoose88]

Just a couple of points/questions.  What Jmfcst says, in and of itself, makes sense, but to me, its pretty troubling in that one who has never heard or had the opportunity to hear the good news is condemned to eternal damnnation.  Maybe its just me, but I have a hard time squaring the plain words of the Bible with my view of a fair, loving and just God (as portrayed in the New Testament) with the literal words-if you do not believe, then you will suffer hell.

Assuming for arguments sake that we're going to, as countless generations have, weigh Paul's views so heavily (because of course they're in the NT)...that may be an issue for another day...I still find it hard to believe that 1) say for instance native americans living at the time of Christ up to the preaching of the Gospel in the new world, would have been able to know that the Son of God was born into the family of a meager carpenter in some backwater Roman province and that his crucifixtion was the saving of the world.  Those people have, in my mind, no notice that such moments have occurred and to judge them equally with those who have had the actual opportunity to believe in Christ, and still reject it seems, well...unreasonable.

But as you've said, the words of Paul lean in your favor, as do the words of the NT requring belief (which to me is belief in or knowing rejection of, but another issue).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But as you've said, the words of Paul lean in your favor, as do the words of the NT requring belief (which to me is belief in or knowing rejection of, but another issue).

It's not just the opinion of Paul, for I quoted from Jesus also.  In fact, one of the most famous passages of the bible says the same thing:

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

Sounds to me like the world was in a state of comdemnation and in need of salvation; therefore God, out of his love of the world, gave his son so that the world could be saved through Jesus.  Whoever believes it saved, but whoever does not believe remains condemned because they did not latch onto God's salvation.

Sounds pretty simple to me.

[bullmoose88]

But as you've said, the words of Paul lean in your favor, as do the words of the NT requring belief (which to me is belief in or knowing rejection of, but another issue).

Sounds to me like the world was in a state of comdemnation and in need of salvation; therefore God, out of his love of the world, gave his son so that the world could be saved through Jesus.  Whoever believes it saved, but whoever does not believe remains condemned because they did not latch onto God's salvation.

Sounds pretty simple to me.

I wish.

I mean, assuming God is loving etc, why would he require those who lived on the other side of the world to believe in a man they have never heard of, never heard prophecy about, in a place they don't even know exists, to suffer and die at the hands of a man they've never heard of and in a way they probably don't know about...not to mention a history changing event at a random tomb thousands upon thousands of miles away

I realize the text of the Bible essentially says, believe and you're saved, do not believe and you're condemned...what does it mean to not believe in this circumstance...you could (and it seems you and a great deal of Christians agree) take do not believe to encompass both those who have rejected the truth, and those who have (either through inaction or inability to believe) failed to form (or even realize there was a thing to be believed) a belief. 

To throw those who are unable to believe (say mental incapacity) or those who have failed to believe (because they did not or couldn't know of the existence of such a choice) with those who have rejected the truth...still seems inconsistent with the premise of a loving, fair, and just God.

[afleitch]

I take issue with thye use of the term 'to believe' - The Greek is pisteuo; to trust, to be persuaded of (this I believe is the definition used by the Catholic Church)

Trust is different from belief.

Trust in Jesus is, to be fair a greater attribute than just belief.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As the parent of an eight year old, I have a vested interest. 

then you better get him saved.  As for babies, yes they are born with a sinful nature, but that sinful nature has not yet awakened and produced sin.  And since they haven't sinned, then they are not under condemnation.

---

And aside from your rant which basically blames God for the man's state of condemnation, even though it was man that walked away from God and not the other way around...

You ask what the point is of preaching the Gospel if they are already saved.  GREAT question.  If you've been cured of a horrendous disease yet aren't aware of it, isn't it likely life would change dramatically if someone came along and told you the good news?  A person can be very well in reality, and still live and behave as though they are dying. 

What?!  Did I read that correctly?!   Are you saying those who haven't heard the gospel are already cured (saved) and the purpose of the gospel for them is to simply change their earthy life for the better?!

So, instead of "bringing salvation to the ends of the earth" (Isa 49:6, Acts 13:47), the Gospel simply brings good cheer to those who already have salvation?

---

JSJ,

Let's make this very simple:

1) Does your bible offer a path of salvation?
2) If so, then what is that path in your bible?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I take issue with thye use of the term 'to believe' - The Greek is pisteuo; to trust, to be persuaded of (this I believe is the definition used by the Catholic Church)

Trust is different from belief.

Trust in Jesus is, to be fair a greater attribute than just belief.

agreed, belief in this context means to adhere to.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

To throw those who are unable to believe (say mental incapacity) or those who have failed to believe (because they did not or couldn't know of the existence of such a choice) with those who have rejected the truth...still seems inconsistent with the premise of a loving, fair, and just God.

Acts chapter 16
29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"  31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

Notice that Paul and Silas did NOT respond:  "Well, you can do one of two things - a) go crawl under a rock and remain ignorant and you'll be saved, or b) believe in Jesus Christ and you'll be saved."

As hard as it is for people to accept it, unless Paul and Silas misunderstood and thought the jailer asked "What is one of the ways I can be saved?", then we “MUST” believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

I could probably line up 50 different passages which, taken at face value without paraphrasing, state no other path to salvation other than through faith in Jesus Christ.  But I have found ZERO passages stating that there is any other path for anyone in the world today.

If someone wants to throw one out, I'd love to take a look at it.

[JSojourner]

Well, once again Jm, you are making this personal.  This happens every time I try to have a serious discussion with you about anything but Sarah Palin or football for some reason!

LOL

My child IS saved.  She was baptised at the age of two (which, I realize, you don't consider of any value at all) and, later, when she asked me how I knew I would go to heaven when I died, I explained it to her this way...  She was six.

I said, "Well sweetie, I know I will go to heaven when I die because Jesus died on the cross for my sins...because he, even though he was perfect, took my sins and fault on himself.  And he paid the penalty.  I realized that no matter how good I tried to be, I could never be as good as God.  Only Jesus could.  So I told him that and thanked him for his love and invited him to be my Savior and friend."

She then asked if she could do that.  And, while I do put stock in the baptism of infants and children, I joyfully invited her to ask Jesus to be her Savior and friend, too.  She did.

I suspect you will say that if she should die, she will go to Heaven on that basis.  I hope so anyway, or we really ARE at opposite ends of the globe on this issue.  But at the end of the day, we come back to the conversation we had some weeks ago.  Did my daughter (and did I) save myself by "believing"?  No.  The salvation is the free gift of God based entirely on the work of his Son on the cross.  If I make it about who voluntarily steps across that line, then the focus is on the WORK of the individual in "making a decision" for Christ.  Rather, I am more inclined to say salvation was accomplished -- signed, sealed and delivered -- by Jesus on the cross.

What we have to determine is who the Savior was talking about when He said, "Those who the Father gives me can never be taken away from me.  No one can snatch them from my hand."  And I can tell you, you'd have a lot more fun debating the doctrine of election and predestination with Bono.  

Millions of people do, thank God, decide to follow Jesus...to accept Him as their Savior...and that's as it should be.  But that is, in my understanding, not the salvific act.  The salvific act took place on the cross, where perfection died in place of imperfection and purity took the punishment that was due corruption.  I'm glad that's how I see it.  That it was all His doing and absolutely none of mine.  Because given my ability to bollocks things up, I'd always be wondering if I had done enough, believed exactly the correct thing or said precisely the right prayer.

[bullmoose88]

To throw those who are unable to believe (say mental incapacity) or those who have failed to believe (because they did not or couldn't know of the existence of such a choice) with those who have rejected the truth...still seems inconsistent with the premise of a loving, fair, and just God.

Notice that Paul and Silas did NOT respond:  "Well, you can do one of two things - a) go crawl under a rock and remain ignorant and you'll be saved, or b) believe in Jesus Christ and you'll be saved."

What you've described here, is willful ignorance, I haven't argued that willful ignorance is a permissible path to salvation...I don't think JS has either (but I can't speak for him).

What I'm wondering about are those who haven't acted like osteriches and hidden, but those who have never had the opportunity (because missionaries hadnt arrived) and could not have had constructive knowledge (should have known if not for ignorance).

[JSojourner]

To throw those who are unable to believe (say mental incapacity) or those who have failed to believe (because they did not or couldn't know of the existence of such a choice) with those who have rejected the truth...still seems inconsistent with the premise of a loving, fair, and just God.

Notice that Paul and Silas did NOT respond:  "Well, you can do one of two things - a) go crawl under a rock and remain ignorant and you'll be saved, or b) believe in Jesus Christ and you'll be saved."

What you've described here, is willful ignorance, I haven't argued that willful ignorance is a permissible path to salvation...I don't think JS has either (but I can't speak for him).

What I'm wondering about are those who haven't acted like osteriches and hidden, but those who have never had the opportunity (because missionaries hadnt arrived) and could not have had constructive knowledge (should have known if not for ignorance).

That's why I brought C.S. Lewis to bear on the subject.  His idea was that those who never heard the Gospel or who heard it but, because of infirmities or other impairments, could not understand or receive it, were and are covered by the same grace that saves us all.  He did not argue that this negated the need to believe or trust in Christ on OUR part.  Only that God, being just and the very soul of love, takes into account their reality...and judges them on the basis of whether or not the follow the light they DO have.

Ironically, I first heard this doctrine put forth by a very fundamentalist preacher/teacher named John MacArthur.  Which surprised me -- because MacArthur likes him some hellfire and damnation.  I thought it was quite refreshing.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Did I save myself by "believing"?  No.  The salvation is the free gift of God based entirely on the work of his Son on the cross.  If I make it about who voluntarily steps across that line, then the focus is on the WORK of the individual in "making a decision" for Christ.  Rather, I am more inclined to say salvation was accomplished -- signed, sealed and delivered -- by Jesus on the cross.

Luke 7:50 "Your faith has saved you."

So, you are wrong - your faith does indeed save you!

And to get downright technical about it, as you like to do:  even your belief (faith) is from God.  

1Tim 1:14 "Grace was poured out on me abundantly, along with faith."

Nevertheless, without faith, you are unsaved, for without faith, you can't find grace, and without grace you can't have access to Christ:

Eph 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God."

Rom 4:16 "Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace"

Heb 11:6 "Without faith it is impossible to please God"

---

I have never stated that obtaining a faith in Jesus Christ was my own doing.  In fact, my testimony states that God simply decided to reveal himself to me one day back in Oct 1992 and that I didn't even know I was looking for God.

So, you can think of "faith" as a gift, or as evidence, or whatever category you want to place it in...the simple fact is that you can not be saved without "faith":

John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That's why I brought C.S. Lewis to bear on the subject. 

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, and I know that I have been overly active today and have bugged the heck out of most of you...

but who the heck is C.S. Lewis?  Does he hold knowledge of God's will beyond scripture?

ICor 4:6 "Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, 'Do not go beyond what is written.' Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?"

Now, granted there are differring levels of faith (one Christian may have stronger faith than another Christian), but those are differring levels within a single faith so that the object of that single faith is the same - Jesus Christ.

[John Dibble]

but who the heck is C.S. Lewis?

All about C.S. Lewis.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

but who the heck is C.S. Lewis?

All about C.S. Lewis.

Just as I suspected: C.S. Lewis ain't God, even if some people like to quote him instead of scripture.

[afleitch]

but who the heck is C.S. Lewis?

All about C.S. Lewis.

Just as I suspected: C.S. Lewis ain't God, even if some people like to quote him instead of scripture.

There are many learned Christians jmfcst, over the past 2000 years who have deliberated and thought and spoken and argued a whole manner of things. These people were motivated by the Holy Spirit too, you can't just dismiss them and the opinions they formed through their study of the Bible.

Why don't you read about them and see what they were on about? You never know, they might enlighten you.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Just as I suspected: C.S. Lewis ain't God, even if some people like to quote him instead of scripture.

There are many learned Christians jmfcst, over the past 2000 years who have deliberated and thought and spoken and argued a whole manner of things. These people were motivated by the Holy Spirit too, you can't just dismiss them and the opinions they formed through their study of the Bible.

Why don't you read about them and see what they were on about? You never know, they might enlighten you.

that's cool, afleitch.  And I am not trying to strain at a gnat about this, but in all their study of the bible, surely they can cite a verse in the New Testament regarding the path(s) to salvation.  Because if the New Testament doesn't provide a path to salvation, then it wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on.

It is a fundamental question for a mentally functioning adult to ask: "What MUST I do to be saved?"

Is there any question more fundamental or more important?

What is Christianity, exactly, if it can't answer that question? 

Do we, as Christians, have to have every answer to every question with all i's dotted and all t's crossed in order to give an answer to that one simple question?

Jesus and all the Apostles were able to answer that fundamental question point blank and without hesitation. 

[afleitch]

Jesus and all the Apostles were able to answer that fundamental question point blank and without hesitation. 

Indeed they were, but they knew Jesus in his life and after his ressurection. They were part of his immediate close community. And even as the apostles travelled for decades after Jesus had left this earth they could only reach a few pockets of the Roman Empire. One thousand years later, Christianity hadn't even penetrated across the whole of Europe.

How on earth could people be condemned because missionaries had not yet got to them? They may not have known Jesus the Son, but they may have known God the Father, because God is self evident in his creation. If you look you can find him, though you don't have any book or any knowledge of his complexity to guide you. You said God revealed himself to you - would he have not done so had you not heard of him or heard of the Bible or had not lived where you live or been born where you were born? If so, why can he not therefore reveal himself, in whatever manner to those who have not heard him?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus and all the Apostles were able to answer that fundamental question point blank and without hesitation. 

Indeed they were, but they knew Jesus in his life and after his resurrection.

what is the "but" trying to say?  Is it trying to say that we can NOT give the exact same answer to the same question, as if we need to come to different conclusions than Jesus and Apostles did?!

--

How on earth could people be condemned because missionaries had not yet got to them?

Well, if they're not condemned already, then why did Apostles lead missionaries?

---

They may not have known Jesus the Son, but they may have known God the Father

You can’t know the Father apart from Jesus Christ:

Mat 11:27 “No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

John 14:6 “"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

---

You said God revealed himself to you - would he have not done so had you not heard of him or heard of the Bible or had not lived where you live or been born where you were born? If so, why can he not therefore reveal himself, in whatever manner to those who have not heard him?

Again, why did Apostles lead missionaries?

Indeed I would not have come to believe without the bible.  But that is why the bible is preached:

Rom 10:12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

[afleitch]

You said God revealed himself to you - would he have not done so had you not heard of him or heard of the Bible or had not lived where you live or been born where you were born? If so, why can he not therefore reveal himself, in whatever manner to those who have not heard him?

Again, why did Apostles lead missionaries?

Indeed I would not have come to believe without the bible.  But that is why the bible is preached:

Rom 10:12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

I was asking you, did God only reveal himself to you because you knew there was a book called the Bible where answers could be found? What therefore made you different from someone who was not aware of this book for example? Because, unless I am mistaken and you may have to explain things here, your experience of salvation sounds as if it contrary to how you interpret salvation biblically.

Who missioned you? Because from what you've said it appears that God can only be revealed through the work of human mission ('why did the Apostles lead missionaries'), as you consider that the apostles were instructed to do and not through supernatural revelation through the Holy Spirit.

When God was revealed to you, you had the opportunity to go to any bookstore or church and pick up the Bible. If he revealed himself to some man in Kansas 800 years ago, he would not have that liberty. Therefore that man could not be damned because of the circumstances of this birth even though God through the Holy Spirit had revealed himself,

It can be held that no one may find salvation other than through Christ, but where is Christ to be found other than the Bible or from the lips of missionaries? Unless you disagree with the concept of 'homoousion' or the belief that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son and through the Spirit both Father and son can be revealed.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I was asking you, did God only reveal himself to you because you knew there was a book called the Bible where answers could be found? What therefore made you different from someone who was not aware of this book for example? Because, unless I am mistaken and you may have to explain things here, your experience of salvation sounds as if it contrary to how you interpret salvation biblically.

Who missioned you? Because from what you've said it appears that God can only be revealed through the work of human mission ('why did the Apostles lead missionaries'), as you consider that the apostles were instructed to do and not through supernatural revelation through the Holy Spirit.

When God was revealed to you, you had the opportunity to go to any bookstore or church and pick up the Bible.

No, my testimony is that I received the Holy Spirit while reading the book of Galatians in the bible – the bible being the written word of God. 

So, I am not saying you need a mission to bring you the word, you can receive a written mission in the form of a bible; but whether heard from preaching or read in bible, you need the word to have faith:

Rom 10:17 “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.”


---

It can be held that no one may find salvation other than through Christ, but where is Christ to be found other than the Bible or from the lips of missionaries?

That’s the point, you can’t.  The purpose of missionaries is to bring salvation through preaching and spreading the word of God.

Rom 10:12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"… 17 “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.”

---

But, seriously, I would have thought that the purpose of spreading the gospel (to save people through faith in Jesus Christ from eternal damnation brought on as a consequence of their sin) was obvious to anyone vaguely familiar with Christianity.   

If the New Testament teaches anything else about the purpose of the gospel, I am still waiting to hear it.  Instead, I read:

1Pet 1:9 “You are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.”

Could it be that Christians have allowed themselves to be muzzled by modern political-correctness to the point that the purpose of the gospel is not even recognized by many Christians?