Dialogues on religion (Part I: May 5-6, 2008) For my own records, I've decided to copy an ongoing online discussion I'm having. Perhaps it may be of interest to some.

Chosen posed the following question: "Okay, I know this is a pretty basic question, but I honestly had never thought about it until today. What happens to the people who never heard about Jesus? Do they go to Heaven? Or Hell? Why? What are some verses to back it up?I'd really apreciate anyone's thoughts/opinions on the matter. Thanks!"

Jeremiah: "Sure. I'm actually trying to work this into an outline, then a textbook of sorts. Let's start with the Garden of Eden, to build a foundation. Adam and Eve were naked before the fall and after the fall, the only thing that changed was their knowledge of their nakedness, and this knowledge came from the aptly named Tree of Knowledge. Their condemnation came in the form of banishment from the garden and God's presence, and from access to the Tree of Life. Throughout the bible, nakedness is (with two exceptions: Gen. 2:26 and Job 1:21) always symbolic of sin and shame. Verses indicating shame include: Gen. 3:7-10; 9:21-22; Lev. 18:7-19; 20:11.17-21; Isaiah 20:3; Romans 8:3; II Cor. 11:27; and Rev. 3:18. But here's the thing: shame must be taught. Right and wrong must be taught. They are not inherent. If knowledge of right and wrong, virtue and shame were inherent, babies would be born trying to cover themselves. Young children wouldn't want to run around naked. Tribesmen in far off lands wouldn't be caught topless no matter how hot it was. These things must be taught. Romans 4:15 says that where there is no law, there is no transgression.

What doesn't need to be taught? What "laws" are universal? The existence of God. Romans 1:19-21 tells us that his existence is obvious through creation. Though I'm not sure I can prove it scrupturally, psychologically, I think "do unto others" might also be obvious without teaching, speaking in a strictly utilitarian mindset.

Therefore, when an unreached person shows faith, as Abram did, it is counted as righteousness, through the saving blood of Christ, even though Christ the man was never apparent to them. They have known the Father and would therefore, recognize the Son, just as the Pharisees' lack of recognition towards Jesus proved their ignorance of God's true self.

That isn't to say that some tribesmen aren't given over to evil. I am sure that there are many wicked ones who would reject Jesus should He ever be presented to them."

Spyhunter: "Those who die in Christ go to be with Him, as their life is hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3). Those who die without the rebirth into Christ remain in the shadow of death, Sheol/Hades/Hell, until the day of judgment when Hades empties itself of souls and is cast into the lake of fire" as mention in Revelation... oh, chapter 20 or 21. If their name is in the Lamb's Book of Life, then they will know resurrection. Jer's philosophy likely plays a role in that determination, though I don't have the time or energy to expound on it much more than that at the moment."

Jeremiah:"Indeed. As we read about the Lamb's Book of Life, the context almost suggests that everyone's name starts out in the Book (suggesting the primal innocence of babies mentioned in Jer. 19:4; Ezekiel 20:26; Psalm106:38) and is blotted out (Exodus 32:33; Rev. 3:5) as we reject God. This would fall perfectly in line with the idea that condemnation/death is earned as the wage for our sinning (Romans 6:23)."

Spyhunter:"And the Lamb is still the only way to the Father."

Jeremiah:"Very true, but then, you've heard my explanation on that."

Living Sacrifice: "The only problem being that all have sinned, so therefore everyone's name has been blotted out as well.

Salvation come from hearing the Word of God. I don't think that one can be saved without knowing about Jesus. Because after all, how can they be saved unless they hear, and how can they hear unless someone tells them?

I do know of a story about a woman in a remote tribe who knew that spirit worship was wrong and that there must be one true God who created everything. So she prayed to this God every day and said, "Send me your messengers and bring your words to me". After two years, who should come to this woman's village but missionaries bearing the words of one true God who created everything. The woman was not at all surprised to find that God had answered her prayers and immediately accepted Jesus as her savior.I believe that God will bring His words to those who truly want to hear them and to know Him.

I also believe that God knows where people's hearts are at and He knows who is ready to hear the Word and believe. I believe that He will always bring the gospel to them."

Jeremiah: "Generally speaking, you're right. But when you get to specifics, those are misinterpretations. Look at the first one. Romans 3:23 says "All have sinned..." but the verse doesn't end with a period. It ends with a comma. It then goes on to say that all men are justified, which we know doesn't apply to all men everywhere. It does, however, apply to all men in Paul's audience, namely the Roman church. That would not, therefore, include those that had not heard the Gospel. Paul's point wasn't that all men have sinned, but that all of you (speaking to the Romans) have sinned, and are only saved through Christ. Christ said that there are some "whose names I will never blot out" (Rev. 3:5) so we know that not all are blotted out.

The second part has to do with Abram. Abram did not know Christ, yet that did not stop him from having his faith counted as righteousness. His faith was based in God the Father, or more correctly (to his Jewish mind) God the creator. This Creator is the same creator that Romans 1:19-21 says that men can know through creation. If you know the Father, then you know the Son. The Pharisee's lack of knowing the Father was evident by their denial of Jesus. If, therefore, a tribal man knows the creator, then he knows Jesus, at least in essence, which is why some peaceful tribes so readily convert to a proper presentation of Christ.

The "traditional" post-reformation model of the mechanics of salvation has numerous "paradoxes." I found it interesting that John MacArthur, in a sermon series on Calvinistic principles, kept demanding that we believe what the bible says, and only what the bible says. But then when he mentioned that there are verses that seem to contradict those Calvinistic principles, he said that we must label them as paradoxes, and we must not try to solve them. He actually suggested that we not try.

In other words, if the bible agrees with MacArthur, all Christians should accept his interpretation. When it disagrees with MacArthur, it's a paradox that's beyond anyone's understanding, even though there are centuries-old explanations that make a paradox unnecessary.

What I am suggesting is a model (P.A.R.K.)without paradox. Since the bible was written to and for men, it only makes sense that the information included within it is understandable to the audience. If incomprehensible "tongues" were frowned upon, why would an incomprehensible message be acceptable?"

-------------

I'm always excited to discuss these things with Living Sacrifice. Of all the Calvinists I know, he and one other are the only two that can debate in a civil manner. He is always willing to listen to an explanation. That's why I thought this conversation would be one worth saving. Thanks and enjoy.

Tip #173*: Beat Them To The Punch
This week we’re going to look at yet another way to debate theology successfully online. In Tips #57 and #112, we alluded to the very limited list of scriptures that can be erroneously employed by Calvinists to support their platform. That is assuming that they choose to use scriptures, rather than sensational arguments announcing man's inability to comprehend a divine paradox.

Once more, let me lay a foundation for the mechanics of this tactic: Four of the five Calvinist points (U.L.I.P.)are nonexistent in Christian theology or Christian commentaries before the 1500’s. That means that for every scripture the Calvinists employ, there is a 1500-year tradition of interpretation that requires no such interpretation. Many of these scriptures, when taken in their proper context, mean exactly the opposite of what John Calvin would have us believe that they mean.

Many Arminians and Pelagians, as a result of this scripture hijacking, fear to use these scriptures in a debate, for fear of making the Calvinists’ case for them. Such worry is unfounded and imposes limits on your usage of scripture.

This week, let me suggest that the next time you’re debating, try out a new approach. Start your argument with a few properly interpreted, though usually Calvinist-favored scriptures, such as Romans 9 or John 10:28. The former is perhaps one of my favorites, because, as I said in Tip #4, one of the greatest ironies in biblical interpretation is that Romans 9, a writing that was meant to explain away a misinterpretation of the Jewish people—namely, that God shows favoritism—has been misinterpreted again, by the Calvinists, to say that God does, indeed, show favoritism. By beginning with a proper interpretation of election, conveying Paul’s original point, you undercut inevitable Calvinist attempts to stake a claim on that epistle. They may still try to redefine the scripture, but by bringing it up, you may be breaking a rhythm that they had intended to establish later on.

John 10:28, which I also mentioned, says “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.” Instead of giving someone the opportunity to quote this verse out of context, begin by starting the quote a verse before, when Jesus defines who the “them” actually is: “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” There is great emphasis put on active movement with Christ. Listening to Him. Knowing us. If you don’t listen to Christ, if He doesn’t know you, if you’re not following Him, verses 28 and 29 do not apply to you.

I anticipate that some will try to reverse this method of debate, by striking first and imposing Calvinist interpretations on, well, any scripture, to beat us to the punch, but be encouraged and remember: a theology that began the race 1500 years late can never truly have the first word.







*No, there aren’t really any other “tips” on this blog yet. Funny?

I'm having a discussion about drinking alcohol, and I make the point that if drinking in moderation was a sin, Jesus would not have turned water into wine. Paul would not have, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, told Timothy to take wine for his stomach. I was quickly informed that I should stop trying to find loopholes in the bible. In other words, quit justifying what you believe by taking the bible in context.

Salvation Cannot Be Earned (archived from newsletter, August 2007)

In my free time, I engage in a lot of debates. One subject that frequestly comes up, or rather, I should say, one accusation that is frequently leveled against me is that I believe that faith comes by works, simply because I believe that it can be forfeited. Whether you agree with me that it can be forfeited, let me explain why I don't believe it can be earned, and why there's a difference. Frankly, I'm simply tired of being falsely accused.

Much of my time that is not free is spent working. I'm a tile-layer by trade; I used to be a carpenter. Either profession will suit this example just fine. As a tile-layer, I often come home with fingers that have been smashed by a stack of tile, cuts on my hands from the ones that broke, and a set of lungs full of concrete and mortar dust. When I was a carpenter, my hands took even more abuse: cuts from a saw, splinters, cracked and chapped hands from dealing with dry wood. At the end of a week, I would pick up a check for my pain and trouble.

Imagine, if you will, that I decided to sign my check over to you, for no other reason than you're my (now very grateful) friend. The reason that you're getting the check is because of our relationship. If you weren't my friend, you wouldn't be getting a dime. I dare you to say, however, that you earned the money simply by being my friend, when it cost me so much pain to earn it.

Likewise, Christ's ever-more painful sacrifice cost Him dearly. No amount of loving, worshipping, serving, or praying to Him could ever add up to the price that he paid. Nor do we claim it does. We are simply his friend, acting as a friend, and recieving the gift that he wants to give us. And we should accept it, because it cost Him so very much.

One of the major problems in the earlier argument is it's definition of "works." It seems that, since the Protestant Reformation, the word "works" has come to mean something very different than it did in Paul's day. Galatians 3:2,5 and 6 pit the concepts "faith" and "works" against one another, which means that belief is something very different than earning one's salvation through the Law, which was Paul's definition of the word.

Post-publication note: I've taken a photograph of one of my hands after a particularly hard day, to illustrate this point a bit more.