Happy Chanukah!

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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!"

[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?

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

1Cor 1:21 "God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."

So, to me, that means, it pleased God to have salvation come to people by having those very same people believe in the foolishness of a message that was preached.  Therefore, to me, that means they were NOT saved prior to believing in the word of Christ, for what was preached was the need to accept that Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of our sins, which seems like foolishness in the eyes of the world. 

Now, I ask you, how else can it be interpreted?

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

This isn't a 'political correctness' issue because it has been an issue of theological discussions for many many centuries.

It has ALWAYS been a PC issue:

Rom 1:16 “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.”

And where is this debate?  I’m still waiting for it:  which verses do you use to claim someone can be saved without the preaching of the word?

---

Romans 8: But you are not in the flesh, but the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead, because of sin: but the spirit liveth, because of justification. And if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you; he that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Again this affirms the Trinity, that the spirit of Christ is also the 'sprirt of him that raised up Jesus' (god). Therefore the Spirit is the agent of God and Christ.

Romans 8:14 -  For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God

John 16:  But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall show you. He shall glorify me: because he shall receive of mine and shall show it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine. Therefore I said that he shall receive of me and show it to you.

Is this truth not the Word? When this truth glorifies the Lord? If the Holy Spirit moves the heart of those who are exluded through circumstance from hearing the written word, how can that person be condemened if the Spirit carries the word of God?

Agin this shows that the Spirit is an agent of Christ.

The verses you quoted simply state those who have the Holy Spirit are saved, but what you are leaving out is HOW they received the Holy Spirit to begin with. for you can NOT receive the Holy Spirit without FIRST having FAITH in Jesus Christ:

John 7:39 “By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.”

Gal 3:5 “Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?”

Gal 3:14 “He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.”

Eph 1:13-14 “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.”

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

If the Holy Spirit moves the heart of those who are exluded through circumstance from hearing the written word, how can that person be condemened if the Spirit carries the word of God?

Agin this shows that the Spirit is an agent of Christ.

We have a firm example in Acts 10 of how Cornelius was saved by God telling him to go and listen to the gospel from Peter:

"A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say." (Acts 10:22)

So, even when angels are set out to save those not currently hearing the preaching of the gospel, they steer them towards someone preaching the gospel.

---

Now, if you want to claim God is able to send an angel to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to those beyond the reach of missionaries, I am NOT going to say that is impossible, though I am not sure there is any recorded history of it...unless you believe Joseph Smith.

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

To many people the notion that the virtuous among those who haven't heard the gospel will be sent to hell by God simply because they don't believe in a gospel they've never heard of is a blatant contradiction to the notion that God is loving and just.

You're basically arguing that only adults who have heard the gospel are held accountable to God, but the rest of the world isn't held accountable to God.  Which contradicts the need for the gospel in the first place.  So, the contradiction is with your logic, not the bible's.

So, either the world is held accountable to God and therefore the need for the gospel, or the world is not held accountable to God and the gospel serves no purpose.

But we know that the world is under condemnation and it is Jesus that saves us from that comdemnation:

Rom 5:18 "Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

---

It's the same issue when it comes to unbaptized babies that die going to hell because they weren't baptized by their parents.

not my belief, not my issue

---

Such people usually only have a few options - either they stop believing in the gospel because they see it has a rather large contradiction that can't be ignored, or they believe that the virtuous among the non-evangelized have some sort of out.

what about the option of trying to spread the gospel so that you help save as many as possible?

---

For example in Dante's Inferno the "virtuous pagans" still go to hell...

not my bible, not my problem

---

Now, you may very well be right and the correct interpretation is that they go burn in a lake of fire like everyone else, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a bigger issue than mere political correctness. Again, it's something that can be quite faith shattering.

political correctness is not just external, it is also internal

but there are examples the New Testament of "faith shattering" due to not wanting to come to grips with the cold reality of what was preached by Jesus:

John 6: 60 On hearing [Jesus’s teaching], many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" 61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?”... 66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.  67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve. 68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

So, it is not a function of how appealing the gospel is, rather it is a function of realizing you have no where else to turn.  And if there is no alternative, walking away doesn’t help you at all.

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

The verses you quoted simply state those who have the Holy Spirit are saved, but what you are leaving out is HOW they received the Holy Spirit to begin with. for you can NOT receive the Holy Spirit without FIRST having FAITH in Jesus Christ:

I would contend that.

[Mary…Elizabeth…John the Baptist…Zacharias…Simeon]

You’re choosing examples prior to the new covenant being put into place.  No one is saying there weren’t a handful of individuals who received the Holy Spirit prior to Jesus.  In fact, I could have picked any number of prophets from the old testament and said the same thing you’re saying.

But the ushering in of the New Covenant has changed the rules:

Acts 16:29"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

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

You'll note that I specifically used the word "virtuous" - in this context it would mean someone who would behave as you would expect a model Christian would. You know, people who devote their time and energy to helping the sick and the poor and whatnot, general good Christian behavior, doing so without having heard the gospel tell them.

You can’t be saved with good works, for “without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God” (Heb 11:6) And that “faith” is specifically defined in the New Testament as faith in Jesus Christ.

---

Furthermore, even if the virtuous non-evangelized can be saved, or at least not eternally tormented, it doesn't mean there's no reason to spread the gospel. Suppose you spread the word to someone who is not virtuous and they decide to change their ways when they otherwise would have not done so, saving them and lowering the overall level of sin in the world. So spreading the gospel could theoretically result in more people being saved than if things were just left as is. Thus there is no contradiction in this logic.

Yes, there is contradiction in your logic, for you’re stating that only really bad people need Christ, when the scriptures clearly state that we ALL are bad and in need of faith in Christ:

Romans 3:22 “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus”

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

not my bible, not my problem

Again, it's just a f**king example. Why is it you feel the need to dismiss and belittle the ideas of others without a second thought?
[/quote]

Smiley faces imply joking.  So, I didn’t mean to offend your affections for Dante.

---

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

what about the option of trying to spread the gospel so that you help save as many as possible?

Would you honestly try to spread the word of a being you thought was hateful and evil? That's hardly an option for a moral person. And again, these people find the notion that a loving and just deity would send people to hell for not believing a gospel they've never heard of to be a complete and utter contradiction - why is it you can't wrap your head around that? It's really quite a simple concept.
[/quote]

People are NOT condemned for not believing in Christ, rather they are condemned based on their own sin.  Faith in Christ REMOVES the wrath of God for the individual:

John 3:36 “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him”

So, unbelief doesn’t bring condemnation. 

===

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Political correctness is petty. This is not. PERIOD. You can belittle the internal moral struggles of others all you want, but the fact that this is a serious issue that people have deep thoughts and considerations about does not change one iota.

Reread the passage I posted where many disciples left Christ because they couldn’t accept the gravity of reality Jesus painted….you’ll find that Jesus did NOT attempt to cuddle the “internal moral struggles and deep thoughts and considerations” of those who walked away from God because they couldn’t handle the truth.

Those “internal moral struggles and deep thoughts and considerations” are based on people judging God and are contrary to what Jesus was teaching.

And Jesus reacted to the rejection of his stated reality by asking if any one else wanted to leave.  Those that remained put aside their own judgments of God and accepted God judgments.  And this acceptance drove them to spend their lives spreading the word in an urgent attempt to save as many as they could.

So, to lighten this conversation, I’ll quote one of my favorite movie scenes:

- “You want answers?”
                   
- “I want the truth!”
                   
- “You can't handle the truth!”

Those words might as well apply to much of Christianity in America and Europe.

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

People are NOT condemned for not believing in Christ, rather they are condemned based on their own sin.  Faith in Christ REMOVES the wrath of God for the individual:

John 3:36 “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him”

That's the thing - the people that we're talking about never had any knowledge of it. They were unaware of it, they never even heard the name of Jesus before they died. You can't reject something you know nothing of.

True.  Condemnation depends on being a sinner.  The removal of condemnation depends on sinners hearing and accepting the word of Christ.

----

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can try to justify it all you like, but the model is quite simple. Believe -> saved, don't believe -> hell.

There’s no justification needed.  You’re just leaving out the whole picture in order to state that condemnation is the result of non-belief, when it isn’t.  Rather, it is like…

Sinner Lost and without the word:  No Sin->No condemnation->Sin->condemnation->hell

Sinner Lost and disbelieving of the word:  No Sin->No condemnation->Sin->condemnation->hearing the word->disbelief->condemnation remains->hell

Sinner Lost then saved through belief:  No Sin->No condemnation->Sin->condemnation->hearing the word->belief->faith->removal of condemnation(salvation)->heaven

Now, if you were sinless, then it wouldn’t matter if you heard the word or not, for there would be no need for it:

Sinless:   No Sin->No condemnation->Still no sin->Still no condemnation->heaven

So, it is SIN that puts you to death (brings condemnation), not disbelieving:

“The wages of sin is death” Rom 6:23.

---

The following should be obvious:  If death isn’t the result of sin, then Christ would not have had to die for our sins.  Likewise, if death is the result of disbelief, then Christ would have had to have died for our disbelief, which he did NOT.

1Cor 15:3 "Christ died for our sins"

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

True.  Condemnation depends on being a sinner.  The removal of condemnation depends on sinners hearing and accepting the word of Christ.

That's the problem - the people in question are those who've never been given a chance to hear the word of Christ, making it impossible for them to accept it. How is it you can expect anyone to believe that God loves these people when he never gave them a shot at salvation? Essentially it would mean he abandoned them - would you abandon someone you love?

Dibble, how is it you can follow and understand scripture, yet fail to discern what you have witnessed within this very thread?

Mat 28:18 "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

God chose fallible Christians to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth and so God equipped them to do so. 

But pick up a catholic catechism, or a statement of beliefs from many major protestant denominations, and you’ll read that Muslims and Jews don’t require conversion to Christianity in order to be saved.

God didn’t abandon them, Christians did.

1 Corinthians 15:34 “Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.”

The realization that Christians have been given “all authority in heaven and on earth” to spread the gospel and save those in the world, yet refuse to spread the gospel, is harder to swallow than the fact the world is lost without Christ.

Mat 9:37 "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few.”

That’s the tragedy that I see!  That is what is hard for me to accept!

And that shame Paul mentions falls also on me, for I am also to blame.

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

I post this as a person who was raised Catholic, but am no longer Catholic and no longer Christian or an adherent of any religion (though I do hold a doctoral degree in Religious Studies, but I specialize in Indian and Chinese traditions).  So, my biases, if I have them, are rooted in that background.

I hardly begrudge Christians the right to carry out missionary activity.  I think that devotees of all religious traditions have a right to tell others about their faith and even attempt to persuade others of their beliefs.  When one talks of condemnation, however, one is talking about judgment, and insofar as I ever had any understanding of Christianity, judging is God's job and God's job alone; human beings are not equipped to judge or condemn others, and indeed, they are prohibited by Christ from doing so ("Judge not, and you will not be judged.  Condemn not, and you will not be condemned.  Forgive and you will be forgiven.")  Certainly, Christians are enjoined to spread the gospel, but beyond that, they are enjoined to love others as God loves all.

You can NOT use “do not judge” to nullify acknowledgment that “the wages of sin are death”…NOR can you use “do not judge” to nullify acknowledgment of that Christ is the only path to salvation…NOR can you use “do not judge” to nullify any other knowledge the scripture provides.

Jesus did NOT say, “Do not judge…therefore, forget everything I’ve taught you.”

What Jesus actually said was, Mat 7:1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

Obviously, when I recited the passages which teach the necessity of faith in Christ, I also applied those very same verses to myself.  So, where is the hypocrisy in that?

---

But, historically, this has not been the case.  Christians have taken the directive to make disciples of all nations, when they came to political power, to colonize, coerce, and covert on pain of death, exile and disenfranchisenemt.  The long and torturous history of this heritage in Europe was precisely what led the Founders of the United States, many of whom were undoubtedly sincere and devoted Christians, to ensure that the state would not be an instrument of religious conversion on behalf of any denomination, and this was done precisely to protect the religious beliefs of all.  That means that the United States is supposed to be a pluralistic society.  I always get the feeling that American Christians who take their commission to convert others seriously are at pains to live in a pluralistic society, many seem fundamentally unhappy that there are people living in the same society who do not share their religious beliefs.  Why do I get this feeling?

Because you’re “judging” all evangelicals by the actions of a few tyrants.
 
---

Because this thread started with Happy Chanukah wishes and turned into a thread about Christian missionary activity.  Why did that have to happen? 

Here’s your culprit (I am innocent…of course    )  :

Edit:  By the way, the priest offered a prayer to our Jewish brothers and sisters as they begin their celebration of Chanukah today at mass.  You aren't forgotten this time of year!

I never understood how/why you would pray for people that you think are going to burn for eternity, but I guess this isn't the right venue for that

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

You claim that God equipped the Christians to spread the gospel to the ends of the Earth, but when did he give them boats capable of traversing the vast and stormy seas that separate the major landmasses? Heck, when did he tell them that there was another major landmass that had millions of people upon it that they needed to reach? Seems to me they were under-equipped....To claim it was the fault of the limited human beings whose responsibility it was to spread the gospel is blatantly dishonest or shows a complete and total lack of common sense.

Well, if men found a way to spread over the continents before:

Acts 17:26 "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth"

surely it is "common sense" to believe the way could be found again.

---

Even with armies of preachers there were still places that could not be reached in time to spread the word to give everyone a chance to hear the gospel before they died. .

I thought we already went over that "men were without excuse" (though I may have been discussing that with JSJ earlier in this thread)

Rom 1:18-20 18The 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.

and, again...

Rom 10:17-18 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (paul is quoting Psa 19:4)

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

They've all heard about it, but we need missionaries to go and tell them about it. Seems like a contradiction. Either people know or they don't, make up your mind.

not a contradiction at all:  God created man and gave him the word of God.  Man misused/ignored God's word and became a sinner.  Man’s punishment for sin was death and he was driven from the presence of God. 

But God foretold that the offspring of humanity would destroy the devil one day and redeem humanity. Meanwhile, even though God's invisible qualities were still visible through creation, men went and worshipped god's they made up - they become pagans and worshipped things they could touch and feel. 

So, when the time was drawing near to redeem mankind through the seed of the woman,  God gave a certain nation set of ritualistic laws (the Law of Moses) to help us identity the son of man that would redeem mankind. And when that time reached it’s fulfillment, God manifested himself in human flesh, being born of a woman, and walked among us. He redeemed us by taking our punishment upon him, dying for our sins, and rising again in order to give us a new life free of the condemnation of death.

And he chose man, the same creature that misused God’s word in the first place, to go out to the ends of the earth and save mankind by preaching God’s word. 

And now, the same word whose misuse by man resulted in death, now is used by man to restore life.  Oh, the irony of it all!


So, you yourself may not like the timetable involved in God restoring light to the world, but it was man’s fault for turning off the lights in the first place.

And your complaints about God’s timetable, and your complaints about his provisions to those charged with spreading the gospel, are extremely hypocritical, for at least God did show up and contribute, though maybe not in a timeframe you approve of…but now that he has died for you and given you a bible through his messengers, you STILL refuse to accept and spread his word.

So, please, spare me your tears for the lost and your condemnation of God, for if you really cared about the world being lost, you would be spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Instead, you choose not to lift a finger to help.  Instead, you waste time, when people are dying lost, pointing your finger at God.  Which is, again, hypocritical, since God did lift a finger – in fact, God stepped down off of his thrown and became a servant and took our place on the cross in order to save you. In comparison, what did you ever do to save the lost?

And, even if you still refuse to believe, I don’t know why you waste your time arguing with me; for you’re not arguing with my interpretation of scripture, in fact, you’re agreeing that my interpretation is valid, and you certainly aren’t going to convince me to judge God.  And since you agree that my interpretation is valid, your contention is not with me, but with God.

It’s not that I mind talking with you, but seriously: since you have a problem with God and not with me, why do you even bring me into the picture?  Why don’t you go and take it up with God?  And if you don’t believe the God of the bible exists, why do you spend time complaining to me about a character you believe is fictional?!

I don’t know about anyone else here, but if I have complained for years on end, which you have done, about the cruelty of a character I admitted was fictional, I think I would don a straight jacket and start looking for the nearest hospital.

But, despite all your grumblings against God, God, through his love, is still if offering you a chance not only to save yourself, but also your own family and many others as well.

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

Yet you fail to recognise that you were appealing to Dibble to support you above all others when you have had debates in the past. Even very recently when you and I had a debate. I found it odd that you were appealing to someone who is a self declared non-Christian (no matter how I argued or how you did) because no one on your 'own team' were willing to.

which "team" are you referring to here?  the heterosexual team or the christian team? for the only team "mate" I had on the christian team was a homosexual trying to twist scripture, so it’s not like I could appeal to that Christian teammate for support.

So, don’t blame me that your theory on Mat ch 19 didn’t have a lot of participation, for no one was buying it.

and who else would have joined in?  Not JSJ - the last time he attempted to give a straight answer regarding his homosexuals-are-saved theory, he insisted on wanting answers to every other question under the sun before he would address the flaws in his argument regarding homosexuality.  He even attempted to question whether repentance was a requirement of salvation because he postulated that it might be “works”
(, and even in this thread he was questioning the necessity of faith in Christ because belief in itself is an action could be construed as a “work”.  And strangely, he suggested that the purpose of the Gospel is merely to inform people that they have already been saved so that they can live a happy life, instead of saving those who are lost.)

So, if you wanted others to join in, next time pick something that is believable.

---

If anything, as Dibble has admitted in the past, you pretty much helped seal the deal on where he stood.

As did Christ with the followers who left him.  God gave us the authority to preach the Gospel that Christ himself taught.  He did NOT give us the authority to change it in order to make it more appealing to the masses, and thus destroy its power.

---

Dibble may or may not believe in God, but it doesn't mean he cannot grapple with the theological context, something which you have an inability to do. Theology, or more simply 'thoughts other than ones own' have never been your strong point.

Now THAT is rich! 

This debate regarding the necessity of faith in Christ has been one the most lopsided scriptural debates ever on this forum (JSJ couldn’t even offer a single verse to support his position that faith in Christ was not necessary for salvation, and the only examples you offered were those that predated the new covenant).  And yet you accuse ME of only being able to consider my own thoughts?!

My “theology” has everything to do with using scripture to take control of my own thoughts that swarm around in my imagination - an imagination that desires nothing but pretty pictures and sugar coated stories.  But, I accept what is written in scripture and use it to tame my imagination.

But your “theology” is nothing more than your imagination run amok.

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

It's entirely about your inability to fathom any thought, Biblical or non Biblical that does not come from your own head

Really?  I would have thought most people on this forum consider me unable to think for myself and would accuse me of letting the bible do the thinking for me.

---

(making you an egoist by definition).

My ego doesn’t come from my mind, but from girls reacting to my body.  But, that’s just the opinion of the girls, and I won’t be so bold as to question their judgment.  However, I do think my mind adds to the attraction.

---

That is particularly self evident by some of your Forum Community style posts.

\
You lost me.

In any case…

Do you have any issues with my thesis that you would like to dispute with scripture, I rather keep this about what the bible says instead of about me.