Dialogues on religion (Part II: May 6, 2008) The debate continues with three new entries. To be honest, I'm not as excited about two of new participants because, in the past, they have shown an unwillingness to listen, and perhaps an inability to do so. One of those, I have mentioned before, as they accused me of "rationalizing" my point by quoting scripture, even after they had "proved" their case by appealing to a feeling that had been impressed upon them. The other new participant, DeepCallsDeep, I am extremely gald to see in this give-and-take, because she always makes me reinforce my points, but is one of the most polite people I have ever met. It is her quote that kicks off this session of dialogue.

Because my wife had homework to complete, I was able to save their posts onto my laptop and take my time planning out my response, pulling from at least fifteen different sets of verses. Here is the conversation:

DeepCallsDeep: "I'm just now reading this thread for the first time.That is quite interesting, Jer. I've often thought about the "wages of sin is death" thing and the connotation of "wages" being of course something earned and your interpretation/description of the Book of Life in context with that has thrown some more light on my thoughts.

*ponders*"

Jeremiah: "I'm glad."

DeepCallsDeep: "I suppose my belief on the original poster's questions would follow this route as well as Jer's thoughts on God being revealed in His creation.

I do struggle, though, with the fact that the Scripture states that Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no man comes to the Father except through Me". Sometimes I don't quite know how to reconcile this passage with my thoughts on that passage in Romans already quoted here...about the revelation of what can be known of God being in His creation and hence, every man being without excuse.

I believe it to be a fact that people die everyday never having heard the name of Jesus, so what of them?? At this time, I reconcile it by using the Scripture passage in Genesis where Abraham pleading for Sodom states..."Shall not the judge of the all the earth do right?"

He's a just Judge.

So...how would either of you, (Peace or Jer) or anyone else reconcile the two passages with one another?"

Jeremiah: "Let me paraphrase and repost something I said a few weeks ago in answer to a similar question.

Jesus died to save us from our sins. As I have mentioned, we are only accountable to those things that we know. When a tribal person acknowledged that there was a god, he was, in essence, living in faith as far as he was able, and that faith, as with Abraham, is counted to him as righteousness. Abraham was not sinless, and yet he wasn't held accountable to those sins that he did commit, because his faith painted over it with righteousness.

But the problem is, we can't go straight from faith to righteousness, without some method of forgiveness. That's where Jesus comes in.

You see, God and Jesus are one. And Jesus said that the Pharisees, who were living by the Law alone, didn't have God or Jesus, because they didn't recognize Jesus as God. Had they known God, they would have instantly recognized Him in Jesus. This is also why you have so many records of missionaries who, after getting a chance to present the Gospel (in a proper way) to tribesmen, have an instant conversion. Because they recognize this Jesus fellow as the greater part of the god that they've seen in nature.

Jesus is God whether someone has the bible to explain that or not. When people see a god that created the world, they're seeing Jesus's silhouette. They might not know his name, but they have faith in him. They believe in him in a way that extends beyond head knowledge. And that faith is, as it was with Abram, counted as righteousness. Jesus is still very much a part of their salvation; they're just unaware of the atrocities that he underwent to secure that salvation for them. Missionary work is telling them about what Jesus did, so that they can give him praise for the gift they have recieved.

As for those in Sodom, I believe it is entirely possible to live within creation, see that there is a creator, and reject him as fully as someone in America might reject Jesus Christ. Just because someone hasn't heard the Gospel doesn't mean that they can't reject the spirit of it."

Shadow: "Ephesians 1 makes it clear that Christ knew who would be His before before there was a world. So we need make no mistake that God has always known who belong to Him and will always belong to Him.

Before the cross, those who had faith in the Christ who was to come did not enter heaven until Christ went down into hades and led them to heaven. So even they were not granted entrance into heaven until they had a personal relationship with Christ.

Since the cross, grace is received through saving faith in Jesus Christ. The Bible seems abundantly clear on that as well. One can argue that salvation is reached in a way without personal knowledge in Christ but I don't think it can be proven through scripture.

Even before Christ on the cross, God revealed Himself in a personal way to those who sought Him. It would be no different today. If one truly sought Him, Christ would have to reveal Himself in a personal way. Saving faith comes through a personal knowledge of Christ. There is no other way."

Jeremiah: "At least as far as the three atypical examples go. The bible is by no means an exhaustive historical record, so when we construct a theological model, it ought to be based off the principles behind an action (Abram's faith being counted as righteousness) rather than the sheer number of times an action (personal encounters with God) took place. "

Shadow: "What it does show is that in every example God does reveal Himself in a personal way to that person. To suppose that He operates in another way is to do so without biblical support.

Also if God holds us accountable for only what we know, then why did He destroy the world at the time of Noah? Apparently through God in nature people knew enough to be held accountable."

Jeremiah: "When we look at a small list of some extremely unusual events, it is a stretch to say that they are the rule by which every encounter with God should be evaluated. These events were obviously singularities, recorded because they were unusual. A coin book (one type of historical record) doesn't show a picture of every coin in existence. It shows the irregular and rare ones. That doesn't mean that there are only irregular and rare coins in existence.

The fact that God destroyed the entire world should give us an idea of exactly how wicked it really was--that he could find no one that was righteous, save Noah and his family. Methuselah died at the same time as the flood, which suggests that God was willing to wait for one last righteous person to pass, when the option was between waiting, leaving a righteous person behind, or carrying an invalid onto a ship where they would use resources without contributing in the workload. If he had found others, he would have saved them. But the world's rejection was so great that only a single family could be salvaged. In a way, you might even say that God waited as long as he could to save the world, but when it got down to one family, he could only wait another 120 years (for the ark to be built). The world certainly did know enough to be held accountable."

Shadow: "If we were talking about anything but the Bible I might agree. But we are not. Everything in scripture is significant. The fact that there are no such events as you would suggest mentioned in the Bible speaks out loud and clear. To build theology in what the Bible does not say is in my opinion a dangerous thing to do.

But how did He judge them evil unless they were intentionally being evil? As in having foreknowledge that they were indeed doing evil things? Which is my point about cultures which you describe. As far as I know human nature is the same now as it was then. And just as guilty.

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that no one can be saved by any name other than that of Christ Jesus.

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Act 4:12 and there is salvation in no other One, for neither is there any other name under Heaven having been given among men by which we must be saved.

That salivation is dependant on believing specifically in Jesus.

Rom 10:9 Because if you confess the Lord Jesus with your mouth, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone believing on Him will not be put to shame." Isa. 28:16 Rom 10:12 For there is no difference both of Jew and of Greek, for the same Lord of all is rich toward all the ones calling on Him. Rom 10:13 For everyone, "whoever may call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Joel 2:32

So what about those who have never heard the gospel?

Rom 10:14 How then may they call on One into whom they have not believed? And how may they believe One of whom they have not heard? And how may they hear without preaching? Rom 10:15 And how may they preach if they are not sent? Even as it has been written, "How beautiful" "the feet of those preaching the gospel of peace, of those preaching the gospel of good things."

If there were people who could be be reached, God would have sent someone to them. As William Craig points out in his article (in part) in The Apologetics Study Bible-

As a loving God, God wants as many people as possible to be freely saved and as few as possible to be lost. His goal then, is to achieve an optimal balance between these, to create no more of the lost than are necessary to attain a certain number of the saved. It is possible that in order to create this many people who will be freely saved, God also has to create this many people who will be freely lost.

It might be objected that an all-loving God would not create people whom He knew will be lost but who would have been saved if only they had heard the gospel. But how do we know there are any such persons? It is reasonable to assume that many people who never hear the gospel would not have believed the gospel if they had heard it. Suppose, then, that God has so ordered the world that all persons who never hear the gospel are precisely such people. In that case, anybody who never hears the gospel and is lost would have rejected the gospel and been lost, even if he had heard it. Thus it is possible that God has created a world that has an optimal balance between saved and lost, and those who never hear the gospel and are lost would not have believed in it even if they had heard it.

So long as this is even possibly true, it shows that there is no incompatibility between an all powerful, all-loving God and some people’s never hearing the gospel and being lost.

Basketcase1017: "The question about babies who die is a very tough issue. It even came up in our Roman's small group at Bible school.

If Man goes to hell on the basis that he is a descendant of Adam...therefore utterly lost...than anyone...babies included would fall under that category.

However Paul's point in Romans 1:18-3:20 is that man rejects God and any revelation that is given to them. Well a baby does not fall under that category...he/she is not rejecting anything. But is that Paul's point? He does end the section by saying that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All are under sin. All are in Adam.

If you went at it from the angle that all people are in Adam, than you would have to say yes they do go to hell.

If you look at other passages though it may seem otherwise. David lost his son yet still knew he would see him in the afterlife. Jesus said that it would be better for Judas Iscariot to never have been born. Does that mean that if he had not grown up and just died in the womb than he would have gone to heaven...which is worse than what did happen? I dont know

This is a touchy subject that any answer that is given is going to rub people the wrong way. I think it is best to avoid this topic.

The only thing I know for sure is that God is good and that all that He does is good. Say I get to heaven and find out that God did send all babies to hell. Am I going to stand before Him and say that that was wrong? No. No matter what the outcome, God is good all the time."

Najon: "God does not judge people before hand even though He knows the outcome."

BarsidiousNu: "I haven't researched this topic, so all this is just my opinion.

I think, like your obscure tribes and such that we've never heard of, would go to hell if they don't accept God. It may be cruel, but I think it's true.
God tells us to go to all the nations and teach the Bible. We know that not everyone who hears the Bible will accept it. It's a fact. So that would mean that when we teach the Bible, we are giving them a chance to go to hell. Does that make any sense? Should we just pull all our missionaries out of their work so they don't condemn anyone else? I think it's rather contradictory to what the Bible says (although, as I've said, I don't have anything specific).
As for babies, I think that's different. They can't even conceve the idea of a god, or heaven, or creation, or anything of the sort. They only know basic functions. Cry. Eat. Sleep.

That's just my opinion.

Also, interesting idea Shadow."

Groovychick: "Would God really create a people, not give them a chance to accept Jesus, send them to hell and say, sorry you didn't have a chance to accept Jesus? I am quite sure that His justice would cause Him to offer every single person He has created a chance to receive Him. He is not willing that anyone would perish"

Najon: "Sometimes Jesus didn't say believe in me.

Think about Nichodemus and the Samaritan woman."

Living Sacrifice: "He told the Samaritan woman that He could give her living water that would well up into eternal life. He also told her that He was the Messiah. That seems pretty clear to me. If she believed that Jesus was the Messiah then she would be saved.

And then of course there is John 3:14-18 when Jesus talke to Nicodemus. There isn't a more clear and concise gospel message anywhere else in the Bible. 3 times Jesus said, "Whoever believes in the Son of Man will have eternal life".

Jeremiah: "Shadow: “ If we were talking about anything but the Bible I might agree. But we are not. Everything in scripture is significant. The fact that there are no such events as you would suggest mentioned in the Bible speaks out loud and clear. To build theology in what the Bible does not say is in my opinion a dangerous thing to do.

~~~Above all, the portions of the bible you’re referring to are historical records, and as such, will record the significant and singular events, rather than the more mundane. But since I’m not building a theology on what the Bible doesn’t say, let me give you my biblical reasons for believing as I do. I have based what I believe off what I read in the bible, not singular events recorded therein, but a consistent, bible-long method. There are at least three scriptures that illustrate that names are initially written in the Book of Life and blotted out as we reject God through sin (Exodus 32:33; Philippians 4:3; and Revelation 3:5). There are at least two scriptures that illustrate that death is what we earn through sin (Romans 6:23; James 1:15). If it was pre-existent, the Bible wouldn’t warn people of earning it. At least three verses give us evidence that babies are born innocent (Jeremiah 19:4; Ezekiel 20:26; Psalm 106:38). Romans 4:15 and 5:13 tell us that, without law, there is no transgression. Ezekiel 18:1-9 illustrates that we are condemned by what we do, and that by not doing those things, we will live. While the doctrine of Original Sin dictates that man is born sinful, responsible for the sin of Adam, Deuteronomy 24:15 and Ezekiel 18:17-21 state four times together that a son does not bear the iniquity of his father and that each is responsible for their own sin. Death reigned from Adam to Moses (Romans 5:14) not because the sin was hereditary (for many sinned, as opposed to all) but because men chose to sin. The bible calls all men carnal, which means “made of meat,” or in some cases “material,” but carnality is only sinful when we give ourselves over to it completely and thereby “sold” as a slave to sin (James 1:15; Romans 7:14).
Romans 1:19-21 makes it clear that the existence of a creator is obvious, and that no man is without excuse if he denies that fact, which implies that if they don’t deny it, then they require no excuse, because they have done what was expected of them. All of these verses (and other less obvious ones) point to the idea that man isn’t born sinful, and has nothing to be forgiven for or saved from, until he commits a sin. That God can be known through creation. It never promises a personal meeting with God for those that seek him outside of Christianity or Judaism. Faith in God is counted as righteousness according to Genesis 15:6 and reiterated again and again by more than one apostle, in Romans 4:34; Galatians 3:6; and James 2:23.

Shadow: “But how did He judge them evil unless they were intentionally being evil? As in having foreknowledge that they were indeed doing evil things? Which is my point about cultures which you describe. As far as I know human nature is the same now as it was then. And just as guilty.

~~~That’s just it. They were guilty. They were evil. They knew they were doing wrong and did it anyway. Noah was sinful too, but he believed in God. The tribal cultures that I describe, with a few exceptions, do not bear the features that Sodom (among others) did. The tribes of America were not wholly bi-sexual, nor were the tribes of pre-Christian England, or Africa. They instituted strict punishments for breaking laws and acknowledged right and wrong. Sodom knew right from wrong and reveled in wrong, thus they were judged.Shadow:"The Bible makes it abundantly clear that no one can be saved by any name other than that of Christ Jesus. And I'm not disagreeing. Christ's death is the way that men's sins are forgiven. It is by His name (and blood) that those with faith can make the jump from faith to righteousness.

Shadow (quoting Romans):Rom 10:14 How then may they call on One into whom they have not believed? And how may they believe One of whom they have not heard? And how may they hear without preaching? Rom 10:15 And how may they preach if they are not sent? Even as it has been written, "How beautiful" "the feet of those preaching the gospel of peace, of those preaching the gospel of good things."

~~~That's exactly my point. While a man's sins may be forgiven, it is a missionary's work to take the story of Jesus to unreached peoples, so that they may give glory properly by calling on, believing in, praying to, and worshipping specifically Christ, and not just Him generally, as a silhouette in the creator.

Shadow:"It is reasonable to assume that many people who never hear the gospel would not have believed the gospel if they had heard it.

~~~And I think that would be obvious in how they live their lives. I mentioned once a movie which had an evil witchdoctor that kidnapped children. That is a man who is given over to the devil, even though he has never heard the Gospel. Just as a man can be a child of the devil's without knowing of a devil, he can be a child of God, without knowing, specifically, Christ.

Basket:If Man goes to hell on the basis that he is a descendant of Adam...therefore utterly lost...than anyone...babies included would fall under that category.

~~~See my above comments, and the fifteen or so scriptures contained within) to Shadow. I believe that the idea that we are sinful because we are descended from Adam is unbiblical and borderline heresy. Each man is responsible for his own sin and babies are, scripturally, innocent. Furthermore, Jesus said that we can only come to Christ as a little child. What sense would it make to say that we come to Christ as someone who can't come to Christ because they cannot know him yet?

Barsidious It may be cruel, but I think it's true.

~~~So God is cruel? No. You'll find all sorts of words attributed to God, but never the word "cruel."

Barsidious:We know that not everyone who hears the Bible will accept it. It's a fact. So that would mean that when we teach the Bible, we are giving them a chance to go to hell. Does that make any sense? Should we just pull all our missionaries out of their work so they don't condemn anyone else?

~~~Jesus told the Pharisees, "You do not know the Father because you did not know me." Similarly, if a tribal person is the kind of character who rejects Jesus, they weren't the kind of person who would have accepted a general creator god either. They wouldn't have had the faith to be given righteousness.

Groovychick: Would God really create a people, not give them a chance to accept Jesus, send them to hell and say, sorry you didn't have a chance to accept Jesus? I am quite sure that His justice would cause Him to offer every single person He has created a chance to receive Him. He is not willing that anyone would perish.....

~~~Atta girl.

I need to clarify something, because I think I'm being misunderstood. I'm not saying that those who don't hear the Gospel get a free ticket to Heaven.