Happy Chanukah!

[JSojourner]

For Ben and my other Jewish friends on the forum...

I pray for God's blessings on you and your families this season.  May health, safety and happiness be yours during the Festival of Lights and beyond!

[JSojourner]

Happy Hanukkah, my friends.

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

Is that what the Catholic Church says?  I don't even know.

No, we don't. Just more ignorance on the part of the Catholic haters.

 I was gonna say that didn't sound right.

Matthew 25:41 (Jesus speaking to people at final judgment), ...Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

Revelation 14:11, And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night...

Revelation 20:12, 15, And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life...And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Oh go pound sand.

The passage in Saint Matthew's Gospel has nothing to do with Jews.  It's a judgment of nations and people groups of all sorts...based on what they did and didn't do with regard to "the least of these". There is nothing in the passage you cite...or in the broader context of the passage...that says Jews burn in hell for eternity.

The two passages from The Revelation of Saint John are apocryphal and even so -- not aimed at people of the Jewish religion.

I am not sure what's worse.  Fundamentalist Christians who are sure they are the only ones going to Heaven...or insulting non-Theists who are sure they know what Christians believe about who is and is not damned.  Please try to keep in mind that milions upon millions of Christians reject fundamentalism and do not define themselves or their faith on the basis of who are the "saints" and who are the "aints".

[JSojourner]

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

I can give you a theological answer.  Those (Jewish or not) who do not "accept Christ" are judged on the basis of what light they have.  People often ask me if the First Americans who never heard the Gospel message went to hell when the died.  Of course not.  What's more, like C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, I believe even those who heard the Gospel and rejected it because they could not or did not understand it are not damned. Ultimately, however, God decides.  And I do believe if a person hears, understands and feels the call of the Holy Spirit to receive Christ...but rejects that call over a lifetime...is certainly liable for that knowledge.  Does this mean they will burn in a literal Lake of Fire for all eternity?  Does it mean they will be in a place of eternal desolation, separated from God and love for all eternity? Does it mean they will simply wink out into some sort of oblivion we do not understand?  I am not sure.  I know God is sure...and God is just.  As an old saying goes, "When I can't trace God's hand, I shall trust God's heart."

2. do aborted fetuses go to Hell?
Of course not.  First, one has to have the discussion of whether or not they are even human or have souls.  There...I've upset both my Roman Catholic and my Protestant brothers and sisters! But seriously -- the Hebrew word for life is "breath".  And despite two specific Old Testament references to the possible personhood of fetuses in the woman...(these references more likely teach that God had a purpose for these specific pregnancies...speaking of both David and Jeremiah)...there are other Old Testament references to the fetus as having value as potential beings...yet distinct and less valuable that existing beings.  Else why the different levels of punishment in the Law of Moses for causing a miscarriage over against causing the death of a woman?

But presuming a conservative Evangelical view of the fetus, no.  They do not go to hell.  There is an historically Christian idea that each human is accountable for his acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ at a particular age.  LOL -- in the church I was raised in, it was 12.  You could be "born again" or "saved" before 12.  But if you weren't "born again" or "saved" by the age of 12...only then were you at what they called "the age of accountability".  I never much cared for the idea...but the question is a fair one.  I think my position where question one is concerned is instructive.  It's not the age, it's the understanding that matters.  And a fetus cannot understand.  And therefore...if a fetus is a human soul...it absolutely goes to Heaven


3. at around two months old, I was diagnosed with strep in the blood and almost died.  my fever reached 108F at one point.  if I had died in December 1990, would I have gone to Hell?

Absolutely not.  See my answer above.

4. is Christ the only path to salvation?

Yes.  In fact, I am among the more conservative voices in my denomination on this subject.  I am not a pure Universalist.  I do not believe that Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Paganis or any religion is on an equal plane with Christianity.  Before I go any further however, I have to say that every other religion has something to teach us and, more importantly, has followers who are honorable and outstanding people.  The same would be true of Atheism.

However, of every "god/God" worshiped in the history of the world...to my knowledge...only One has...

A.   Claimed to be both fully divine and fully human
B.   Freely accepted the worship of fellow humans
C.   Claimed to be sinlessly perfect, yet capable of and willing to bear the sins of every man, woman and child past, present and future.
D.    Claimed to believe that his death would atone for these sins
E.    Claimed to have literally, bodily risen from the dead (and been seen by hundreds of witnesses)

This is why I consider Christianity the one true religion.  Jesus Christ is the "nutcase" who said and did all these things.  As Lewis puts it, "He could be a liar.  He could be a lunatic.  Or he could be the Lord of Glory."

So now -- 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...though, remarkably, his Narnia work is where we get the picture we need.  It tells a story of one who served the false god, Tash.  He had never heard of Aslan, the true savior of Narnia.  Either that, or he heard but for reasons he could not be responsible for, he could not understand Aslan or his message.  So he served Tash.  At the judgment, he too, is welcomed into the Kingdom.  Aslan says, "when you served Tash with all your heart, you were truly serving me."

Equivocation?  Possibly.  Limp-wristed, namby-pamby universalism? I understand why some say that.  But what I know of God, I learned from the example of Jesus...whose relentless mercy and ferocious tenderness were anything but weak or equivocal.  And Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.  I do what I see my Father doing." 

If a six year old who never heard of Jesus dies and goes to hell...if a Jew who has lived a life of compassion, service and love dies and, having never been able to get his mind around the idea of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, goes to hell because he just couldn't "get with the program"...then that makes the God of the Bible a sorry, brutal bastard indeed.  The Bible is a guide...and a good one.  But it is one of several legs of the stool.  We are also guided by reason, tradition and experience.  As I have said before, a one-legged stool is wobbly and prone, without a really well-padded seat, to stick straight up one's ass.

Now that I have pissed off the non-Theists, non-Christians and liberal Christians for being too exclusive...and certainly infuriated the Evangelical and fundamentalist folk for being too soft-headed and inclusive...

I shall go and pound some sand myself...  ;-)

[JSojourner]

But presuming a conservative Evangelical view of the fetus, no.  They do not go to hell.  There is an historically Christian idea that each human is accountable for his acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ at a particular age.  LOL -- in the church I was raised in, it was 12.  You could be "born again" or "saved" before 12.  But if you weren't "born again" or "saved" by the age of 12...only then were you at what they called "the age of accountability".  I never much cared for the idea...but the question is a fair one.  I think my position where question one is concerned is instructive.  It's not the age, it's the understanding that matters.  And a fetus cannot understand.  And therefore...if a fetus is a human soul...it absolutely goes to Heaven

In that case, does original sin only take effect at the age of 12? I'm not sure I can square this idea with the concept of original sin.

Most Evangelicals base this belief on King David's praise for God after the death of his infant son.  David, if memory serves, seemed confident he would be reunited with his son in Heaven.  I could have that wrong.

Of course, this is why I am more at home in a tradition where there is infant baptism.  Not so much as a guarantor against damnation...but as an initiation into the family of faith and (my Catholic friends will back me up in this) as an expression of communal participation in each child's life of faith.

Ultimately, I view the concept of original sin as a dead issue.  It was killed on the cross of Jesus Christ.  His heel was bruised, therefore he crushed the serpent's head.  "It is accomplished", he said.  I am, quite admittedly, in a place of uncertainty where the matter of salvation is concerned. The emergent Church, often a surprisingly Evangelical one in many respects, is starting to put forth some interesting (and actually quite ancient) ideas about faith.  The central question here is, "Was the death of Jesus on the cross sufficient or must some action (even mental action) of human will be required for salvation?"  If so, does this not negate Pauline teachings about salvation being exclusively the work of God, based solely on the merit of Jesus, the perfect sacrifice.

This has much to recommend it.  But, and I thoroughly expect Jmcfst to chime in here -- and I hope he will, because I have not abandoned the more modern and conservative soteriological view that some act on the part of man is required.  "With the mouth, one believes and is saved"...etc.

As I say, I am uncertain.  I do know that the opposite of faith is not doubt or curiousity.  Ironically, the opposite of faith is, IMHO, certainty.

[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? 

[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. 

[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.

[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.