What happens to non-christians after death?

marty1985

In my humble opinion, there are a couple of issues here.

If the question is whether or not athiests go to hell, I think to a large extent christians are responsible for athiesm, through carelessness in teaching the faith correctly or through their own hypocrisy of teaching morals and not living by them.

As for other religions. I'm speaking as a Catholic. The Catholic Church has a lot of ties with the Jewish religion. They were the first to hear the word of God, and the faith is based around a similar goal - expectation of the Messiah. The Catholic Church teaches that the plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the Creator, and the first of these is the Muslims who hold the faith of Abraham and, like us, adore God who will be the judge.

Personally, I think it all boils down to one thing Jesus said, "When you did it to the least of my brothers, you did it to me." So I think that's what people will be judged on. When you were good to someone, you were good to him. When you pretended not to see that beggar, you pretended not to see him.

That's my 2 cents.

Sam Vimes

marty1985 wrote: »

Personally, I think it all boils down to one thing Jesus said, "When you did it to the least of my brothers, you did it to me." So I think that's what people will be judged on. When you were good to someone, you were good to him. When you pretended not to see that beggar, you pretended not to see him.

That's my 2 cents.

Just to be clear, your position is that those who treat others well will be saved regardless of their religion (or lack of)? Is that correct?

Glenster

PDN wrote: »

You'd need to be deliberately obtuse, or have zero understanding of any context, to misunderstand it.

Sometimes I just get so tired of the games people want to play here.

It must be great to be so sure about things.

Now me, when I read a book that proclaims Jesus to be son of God, I have difficulty understanding if this is literal, meaning he is of one being with the father, or metaphorical as in Wisdom 2:13 identifying him as a saintly person.

It must be great to know that when Jesus says to the disciples "cast your net upon the waters" that it means 'go and convert people after I'm dead' and not just 'try there for some fish'.

That's not even to get into the fact that the greek for 'perish' in john 3:16 is more propperly translated as marred or damaged, is never used for as a synonym for death in the new testament and is used as in contemporary Jewish teaching to refer to the condition of unbelievers.

I find it very frustrating when people tell me that there is only one interpretation of the Bible. Or that anything in John is clear.

marty1985

Yes, i hesitated for a while here, but yeah. Basically.

Fanny Cradock

You might learn more if you investigate denominational beliefs regarding soteriology/ damnation rather than what "some guy" on the internet thinks.

Wiki is the one stop shop for overviews. (Warning: heretical beliefs included!)

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

Conversely, by Christian (all of whom go to Heaven) I mean those who have the status "in Christ". That might include some who don't identify as Christian but who are actually.

dvpower wrote: »

@antiskeptic. I don't understand this (honestly). Can you elaborate please.

Sure..

There are all kinds of definitions of what it is to be a Christian. Some would suggest that if you have water poured on your head as an infant by a priest then that makes you a Christian. Others would say that if you follow the teachings of Jesus then you are a Christian. Still others would say that if you "accept Jesus into your heart" then you are a Christian. What all should agree though, is that the only true definition of what constitutes a Christian is God's definition. And his defintion (I suggest) is that a Christian is one who He (God) has performed a certain action on. That action is called variously: regeneration, caused to be born again, saved, redeemed.

If God has done this then you are a Christian, if he has not then you are not. It should be clear from this (by logical necessity) that there is no specific need that a person identify with Christianity in order that they be a Christian - all that need have occurred for them to be a Christian is that God perform this action upon them. And so, it is reasonable to suppose (and scripture suggests) there will be those who are Christians/saved/regenerated/redeemed without identifying themselves as Christians per se.

Old Testament types are a clear case in point. They didn't identify as Christians nor had they heard of Christ - yet God performed his saving action on them, making them Christians*

(*which is just another way of saying they were saved through what Christ did on their behalf).

It follows that God can access everyone with his salvation and that no one will be lost merely because they have never heard of Christ or the Bible or the God of the Bible.

marty1985

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You might learn more if you investigate denominational beliefs regarding soteriology/ damnation rather than what "some guy" on the internet thinks.

It was the first time anyone ever asked for my opinion.

Fanny Cradock

marty1985 wrote: »

It was the first time anyone ever asked for my opinion.

Bless! Here's another one - Barca or Inter to win?

Seriously, though, the "some guy" remark wasn't aimed at you or anyone in general. I was attempting to steer Sam in the direction of formulated doctrinal beliefs that should (at least on paper) speak for many, many more Christians than a poll on this forums ever could.

PDN

Glenster wrote: »

That's not even to get into the fact that the greek for 'perish' in john 3:16 is more propperly translated as marred or damaged, is never used for as a synonym for death in the new testament and is used as in contemporary Jewish teaching to refer to the condition of unbelievers.

I find it very frustrating when people tell me that there is only one interpretation of the Bible. Or that anything in John is clear.

You want to discuss Greek? That's fine by me.

The Greek word for 'perish' (apollumi) is the same word used in Matt 2:13 where it says: "Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him".

So, help me here. If this word never means 'perish', then what do you think Herod wanted to do to the Baby Jesus? Just 'damage him'? Rough him up a wee bit?

Lots of things in John's Gospel are clear, and then other things need a bit more study to understand the context.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sure..

There are all kinds of definitions of what it is to be a Christian. Some would suggest that if you have water poured on your head as an infant by a priest then that makes you a Christian. Others would say that if you follow the teachings of Jesus then you are a Christian. Still others would say that if you "accept Jesus into your heart" then you are a Christian. What all should agree though, is that the only true definition of what constitutes a Christian is God's definition. And his defintion (I suggest) is that a Christian is one who He (God) has performed a certain action on. That action is called variously: regeneration, caused to be born again, saved, redeemed.

If God has done this then you are a Christian, if he has not then you are not. It should be clear from this (by logical necessity) that there is no specific need that a person identify with Christianity in order that they be a Christian - all that need have occurred for them to be a Christian is that God perform this action upon them. And so, it is reasonable to suppose (and scripture suggests) there will be those who are Christians/saved/regenerated/redeemed without identifying themselves as Christians per se.

Old Testament types are a clear case in point. They didn't identify as Christians nor had they heard of Christ - yet God performed his saving action on them, making them Christians*

(*which is just another way of saying they were saved through what Christ did on their behalf).

It follows that God can access everyone with his salvation and that no one will be lost merely because they have never heard of Christ or the Bible or the God of the Bible.

All the OT saints believed in God, believed His promises, looked for the Christ who would redeem them. Same beliefs required in NT saints. When God changes a man's heart/nature, the man knows God.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

All the OT saints believed in God, believed His promises, looked for the Christ who would redeem them.

One of the more illuminating saints, Abraham, is described not so much as believing in God as plain believing God - whereby he was justified. Even the demons believe in God

I'm not so sure with what clarity people looked to Christ-as-redeemer specifically. If Abrahams way of salvation is chosen by Paul as illustrative, then it's believing God which proves a hinging point into salvation

Which is something anyone can do - aside from hearing of Christ.

Same beliefs required in NT saints.

My own suspicion is that there is a certain amount of jumping to conclusion regarding such passages. The consequences of a man being saved would be that he recognises Christ as Lord (assuming he is exposed to such information). This is not to say that his believing Christ is Lord is the cause of his being saved. In which case what you say is true - but the beliefs aren't so much a requirement as they are a marker of the saved. A consequence, not a cause.

For example:

All who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. I, antiskeptic, by virtue of being in Christ and having been exposed to teaching about Christ, recognise my sin and that my salvation is to be found in Christ. Therefore I will be one who calls on the name of the Lord. As a consequence of my being saved..

When God changes a man's heart/nature, the man knows God.

Indeed. I'm not suggesting that nothing happens in a sheepherder up the side of a mountain in Tibet on being placed in Christ (yet never having heard of Christ). He will have the life of God within and God will begin his work in that man just as he does everyone else. But that man will not confess Christ as I confess Christ. He hasn't heard of him to be in a position to do so.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

I'm not sure how this verse can be demonstrated as having something to do with a person translating from lost to found (indeed, the very mention of reward reinforces the notion that it speaks to believers who are called greater and lesser in the kingdom of God on account of, it would seem, their actions).

Would you agree that the "Jew" in the early section of Romans highlights the case of the Religious self-righteous: those who 'believe in God' but are as lost as lost can be. And that the "Gentile" in that same section highlights the case of the unbeliever - who is lost as lost can be. About whom Paul concludes the same thing: they are all lost and can only be saved by the gospel. Not by their believing in God.

Sam Vimes

On a side note, wolfsbane I see your sig from 1 Timothy was removed for being offensive. Can't help but laugh tbh

It was the sig about women learning in silence and submission and not having authority over men right?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

On a side note, wolfsbane I see your sig from 1 Timothy was removed for being offensive. Can't help but laugh tbh

It's and odd world alright...

It was the sig about women learning in silence and submission and not having authority over men right?

Perhaps a woman admin figured otherwise. Or a male admin who figured to "fight" on behalf of downtrodden women everywhere.

Glenster

PDN wrote: »

The Greek word for 'perish' (apollumi) is the same word used in Matt 2:13 where it says: "Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him".

So, help me here. If this word never means 'perish', then what do you think Herod wanted to do to the Baby Jesus? Just 'damage him'? Rough him up a wee bit?

Do you honestly maintain that there is no controversy over the word apollumi? Ever since Scotfield and Thompson it's been debated. Gramatically speaking it can't mean removal of life, it wouldn't make sense that way.

This is my point though, it's arrogance to go around saying this or that is what the Bible definitively means. I'm not sure if any two people agree. It's what it means to you.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also only 26% of people have picked that option on my poll. I'm confused.......

Your poll itself is confusing. It conflates morality and salvation into one. Salvation (as far as I know) is different from morality or moral action if we are to consider that we don't earn our way to heaven through our own standing, as we are guilty of sin, but we are justified by Christ's behalf.

It's a major point that is so often missed. There isn't a checklist of things you can do to get into heaven as far as I'm concerned, it is a gift which you can freely accept or reject.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

On a side note, wolfsbane I see your sig from 1 Timothy was removed for being offensive. Can't help but laugh tbh

It was the sig about women learning in silence and submission and not having authority over men right?

I too got a laugh out of it - censorship of the Bible in a Christian forum shows how risible the PC thought-police are. :pac:

But it's not so humorous where it deprives people of their education or employment. Give people like that real power and we'll be reciting peons to Big Brother in the works canteen.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Your poll itself is confusing. It conflates morality and salvation into one. Salvation (as far as I know) is different from morality or moral action if we are to consider that we don't earn our way to heaven through our own standing, as we are guilty of sin, but we are justified by Christ's behalf.

It's a major point that is so often missed. There isn't a checklist of things you can do to get into heaven as far as I'm concerned, it is a gift which you can freely accept or reject.

I am also confused because I often hear christians conflate morality and salvation and 28% have picked such options on my poll. Also when I suggested that morality is irrelevant to salvation I was accused of misrepresenting christianity (although that may have been be because I said "believe an old story" rather than "accept a gift")

One thing I often hear is that atheists theoretically should behave immorally because we have no ultimate consequences and the fact that we generally behave morally is used to argue for a conscience which some theists for some reason equate with the existence of a god. But since morality is irrelevant to salvation, theists have no consequences for their actions either. Again, very confusing.

Also, you say that I can freely accept or reject this gift but there is a problem with that. The problem is that there are thousands of groups all claiming to offer me gifts and even if I decide to accept one, until I die I have no way of knowing if the gift I have chosen to accept is real or one of the many false ones on offer. How can it be said that I can freely choose to accept or reject the offer when I have no way of knowing if the offer is real and no way of ever finding out? If I decide to accept this offer surely I'm running the risk that one of the other offers is the real one? I can say with absolute certainty that if I found out tomorrow that the gift being offered by christianity was real I would accept it in a heartbeat but........

philologos

The poll questions aren't very clear.

I and many other Christians I would know of hold the position, that humans can be moral without believing in God (not without God existing, that's a different question altogether particularly when it could be questioned if there would be anything in existence without God existing).

The question of whether or not one can be saved, is different in my understanding of the passage. Salvation isn't earned by us if we look particularly to Ephesians chapter 2, Romans chapter 3, Mark chapter 10.

Indeed, many Scriptures, including Romans chapter 3 which I have already cited, Psalm 14, and 53 back up the view that no human is good on their own merit.

Salvation is based on accepting Christ's salvation, and becoming justified on His behalf, rather than your own because you are in essence guilty before God. The Jewish Scriptures mention that the Messiah would be wounded for the transgressions of humanity in Isaiah 53.

Morality, on the other hand, is doing what is right, from what is wrong. These standards of right and wrong are absolute even if humans have difficulty agreeing with them. Ultimately they are set by God. So from my perspective, moral living, is living as God intended in His creation. Non-believers in many cases can do a better job than Christians can. Indeed the opposite is also true.

You could be the most moral person in the world, but you would still fall short of God's standard. Likewise, the most immoral person in existence, if they accept genuinely the free grace of God through the Crucifixion, can be saved.

If I am mistaken, I hope that others will challenge this opinion and provide their reasoning so I can learn. Or even a fuller understanding.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
All the OT saints believed in God, believed His promises, looked for the Christ who would redeem them.
One of the more illuminating saints, Abraham, is described not so much as believing in God as plain believing God - whereby he was justified. Even the demons believe in God

Both believing God and believing in God are true of demons. They have no doubt about what He says - they just hate it. They have no doubt that He exists - they just hate Him. When Abraham believed God, he also of necessity had to believe in Him - if He didn't exist, how could one believe what He said? But the belief that saves is more than accepting the facts; it is gladly embracing them, embracing the God so revealed.

I'm not so sure with what clarity people looked to Christ-as-redeemer specifically. If Abrahams way of salvation is chosen by Paul as illustrative, then it's believing God which proves a hinging point into salvation

Which is something anyone can do - aside from hearing of Christ.

The believer has to believe God exists, not just any god. He has to believe all He says. He has to trust Him, and entrust himself to Him. Just as Abraham was prepared to offer up Isaac at God's command.

Christ said that Abraham rejoiced to see His (Christ's) day, that he saw it and was glad. The OT saints knew something of the coming Redeemer. Moses and all the prophets spoke of Him. Job looked for Him.

Quote:
Same beliefs required in NT saints.
My own suspicion is that there is a certain amount of jumping to conclusion regarding such passages. The consequences of a man being saved would be that he recognises Christ as Lord (assuming he is exposed to such information). This is not to say that his believing Christ is Lord is the cause of his being saved. In which case what you say is true - but the beliefs aren't so much a requirement as they are a marker of the saved. A consequence, not a cause.

For example:

All who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. I, antiskeptic, by virtue of being in Christ and having been exposed to teaching about Christ, recognise my sin and that my salvation is to be found in Christ. Therefore I will be one who calls on the name of the Lord. As a consequence of my being saved..

Is belief in Christ a consequence or a cause of being saved? Here's a clear word on it:
Acts 16:9 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Quote:
When God changes a man's heart/nature, the man knows God.
Indeed. I'm not suggesting that nothing happens in a sheepherder up the side of a mountain in Tibet on being placed in Christ (yet never having heard of Christ). He will have the life of God within and God will begin his work in that man just as he does everyone else. But that man will not confess Christ as I confess Christ. He hasn't heard of him to be in a position to do so.

You have no grounds to think that any man who is ignorant of Christ will be saved. When God is going to save any man, He brings the gospel to him. He sends missionaries with the gospel, He puts Christians in the man's way.

Quote:
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
I'm not sure how this verse can be demonstrated as having something to do with a person translating from lost to found (indeed, the very mention of reward reinforces the notion that it speaks to believers who are called greater and lesser in the kingdom of God on account of, it would seem, their actions).

Eternal life is spoken of as the reward for the believer of the gospel:
John 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”
28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

Would you agree that the "Jew" in the early section of Romans highlights the case of the Religious self-righteous: those who 'believe in God' but are as lost as lost can be. And that the "Gentile" in that same section highlights the case of the unbeliever - who is lost as lost can be. About whom Paul concludes the same thing: they are all lost and can only be saved by the gospel. Not by their believing in God.

But the gospel is 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.'

_________________________________________________________________
John 6:40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Fanny Cradock

With all due respect, Sam, I think your poll options reflect your confusion.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

With all due respect, Sam, I think your poll options reflect your confusion.

Yes it does. That's why I started the thread. Some say morality is relevant to salvations, other say the opposite and regardless of whose position I talk about I'm accused of misrepresenting people

and that's why I started the thread.

po0k

Voted: Other

We go back in the pile.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The poll questions aren't very clear.

I and many other Christians I would know of hold the position, that humans can be moral without believing in God (not without God existing, that's a different question altogether particularly when it could be questioned if there would be anything in existence without God existing).

The question of whether or not one can be saved, is different in my understanding of the passage. Salvation isn't earned by us if we look particularly to Ephesians chapter 2, Romans chapter 3, Mark chapter 10.

Indeed, many Scriptures, including Romans chapter 3 which I have already cited, Psalm 14, and 53 back up the view that no human is good on their own merit.

Salvation is based on accepting Christ's salvation, and becoming justified on His behalf, rather than your own because you are in essence guilty before God. The Jewish Scriptures mention that the Messiah would be wounded for the transgressions of humanity in Isaiah 53.

Morality, on the other hand, is doing what is right, from what is wrong. These standards of right and wrong are absolute even if humans have difficulty agreeing with them. Ultimately they are set by God. So from my perspective, moral living, is living as God intended in His creation. Non-believers in many cases can do a better job than Christians can. Indeed the opposite is also true.

You could be the most moral person in the world, but you would still fall short of God's standard. Likewise, the most immoral person in existence, if they accept genuinely the free grace of God through the Crucifixion, can be saved.

If I am mistaken, I hope that others will challenge this opinion and provide their reasoning so I can learn. Or even a fuller understanding.

So your answer one the poll would be option 1, "All non-christians go to hell, all christians go to heaven". Correct?

And could you answer my question about the "free choice"? How can it be said that I have the option to freely accept or reject the gift when I have no way of knowing if the offer is real and no way of ever finding out? It seems to me that I don't have the necessary information to make an informed choice in this matter no? It's as if I'm being given a choice between a thousand black boxes and I won't find out which (if any) is the right one until it's too late. Would you disagree with that and if so why?

philologos

Not as simplex.

There are a number of factors that could impinge on this:
1) Genuine faith is required in Christ's crucifixion.
2) What happens to those who have never heard about Jesus is unclear.
3) It is possible for non-Christians pre-Christ to be saved.

As with all things, I find that things aren't always black and white. So I'd be in the other camp on the poll.

As for not having a free choice, and having no way of determining whether the offer is real. Do you think I think that as a Christian?

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

One thing I often hear is that atheists theoretically should behave immorally because we have no ultimate consequences and the fact that we generally behave morally is used to argue for a conscience which some theists for some reason equate with the existence of a god. But since morality is irrelevant to salvation, theists have no consequences for their actions either. Again, very confusing.

Morality is not irrelevant to salvation. It is irrelevant to initially being saved: we are not justified by our works, but by our faith. However, all true faith is thereafter accompanied by good works as we walk in newness of life.

Also, you say that I can freely accept or reject this gift but there is a problem with that. The problem is that there are thousands of groups all claiming to offer me gifts and even if I decide to accept one, until I die I have no way of knowing if the gift I have chosen to accept is real or one of the many false ones on offer. How can it be said that I can freely choose to accept or reject the offer when I have no way of knowing if the offer is real and no way of ever finding out?

But there is! Only a fool would commit himself to a God whom he was not sure was there. How can you be sure? Seek Him in prayer; ask Him to reveal to you whether the gospel is true or not, if He is the true God and if He saves all who come to Christ:
John 7:6 Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.

If I decide to accept this offer surely I'm running the risk that one of the other offers is the real one?

Don't accept anything until you know its true.

I can say with absolute certainty that if I found out tomorrow that the gift being offered by christianity was real I would accept it in a heartbeat but........

Seek:
Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

_________________________________________________________________
Psalm 34:8 Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good;
Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

Both believing God and believing in God are true of demons. They have no doubt about what He says - they just hate it. They have no doubt that He exists - they just hate Him. When Abraham believed God, he also of necessity had to believe in Him - if He didn't exist, how could one believe what He said?

1) I don't agree it's necessary to believe in God in order that a man believe God. If an atheist finds himself appalled at the actions of a paedophile then it is God's 'voice' he is believing in this matter - whilst not at all believing in God. It can only be God he believes in this instance because it is only God who is the source of his knowledge of what's good (and by extension, what's evil).

(Which is not to say this general belief of the atheist equates to believing God unto salvation)


2) I'd agree that the demons can believe God as well as believe in God. So the matter would appear to centre onwhat Abraham believed (or what his believing it modelled in type, perhaps). Not all believing God results in justification we would agree. But we cannot avoid that it was believing God (on some or other issue) that resulted in Abrahams justification.

But the belief that saves is more than accepting the facts; it is gladly embracing them, embracing the God so revealed.

Whilst agreeing (above) that saving belief isn't just any old believing God (such as the demons and atheists do) I'm not sure I'd jump at "gladly embracing" (whatever belief it is you're suggesting should be gladly embraced). For example: suppose that saving belief was described by the phrase "conviction of sin, righteousness, judgement". Such a conviction could be expected to bring about a certain poverty of spirit, a certain mourning, a certain thirsting for righteousness, a certain "Oh wretched man that I am"-ness. That belief isn't one that sinners would gladly embrace - rather, it is something we would only embrace if we had no other option but to embrace it. Which is hardly a glad embrace.

The gladness would, I suggest, come later. After this conviction, this saving conviction ran it's course - resulting in being born again.

The believer has to believe God exists, not just any god. He has to believe all He says. He has to trust Him, and entrust himself to Him. Just as Abraham was prepared to offer up Isaac at God's command.

The believer will believe God exists - per definition. The question is whether he has to believe that God exists in order to cross from lost to found (after which he might be expected to believe in God). From the above argument and what I've previously said, we see that

a) one doesn't have to believe in God to believe God in the general sense

b) it is believing God that results in justification.


Paul utilises the case of Abraham believing God on the issue of the provision of an heir as his modeling of the means whereby a man is saved by faith. I'd like to hold focus on that if we can.

Christ said that Abraham rejoiced to see His (Christ's) day, that he saw it and was glad. The OT saints knew something of the coming Redeemer. Moses and all the prophets spoke of Him. Job looked for Him.

Something of .. through a glass very darkly. I'm not excluding the possibility that our just saved sheepherder up the side of a Tibeten mountain won't know of something of a redeemer through a glass very darkly. Through a glass very darkly permits all sorts.

It might be noted that Abrahams rejoicing can be expected to have occurred post his justification. It wasn't his knowledge of a through a glass darkly redeemer that produced the locus of salvation. It wasn't necessary for his salvation in other words.

Is belief in Christ a consequence or a cause of being saved? Here's a clear word on it:

Acts 16:9 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”


You have no grounds to think that any man who is ignorant of Christ will be saved. When God is going to save any man, He brings the gospel to him. He sends missionaries with the gospel, He puts Christians in the man's way.

The grounds I have are the fact that Paul uses Abrahams example in the context of a swathe of doctrinal framework dealing with salvation and how it is (and isn't) wrought. And that example doesn't say anything about believing in Christ as the means whereby a man is translated from lost to found. That example also happens to indicate to us that God's way of salvation then is as it is now.

The example above, shouldn't, I think, be used as a broad doctrinal brushstroke given that salvation mechanics isn't really the subject to hand. I'd note however, that my own general position is reinforced by this case. This is a man under conviction: for he falls down trembling for some reason. And the fact he seeks salvation means he must be convinced that there is something he needs serious saving from...

All of which would indicate that before this man has ever heard of salvation in Christ, he has believed God (for how else could he be so convinced?). Which, according to Paul, is the point at which a man crosses the threshold from lost to found. That belief, believing God, is the belief that results in justification.

Eternal life is spoken of as the reward for the believer of the gospel:

John 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”
28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

Indeed - and our question is whether such believing is the cause of being saved or a consequence of having been otherwise saved. So far we've the situation:

- with Abraham, where his translation from unjustified to justified arises not out of belief in Christ but believing God

- with Acts 16:9, where a prior work (strongly indicating conviction of sin, righteousness and judgement) is carried out on this man whereby we can conclude that he has believed God. It is after this that he is faced with the notion that Christ is his saviour. But he has already been justified..

Later in this John 6 passage we read

43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

...which reinforces the notion of something prior-to-belief-in-Jesus being the tipping point into salvation. You, as a Calvinist suppose this too - reckoning God's election of a person to be the prime cause of salvation. I'm not that dissimilar in having a different tipping point than belief in Christ. It's just that my locus is "man believes God".

And his belief, this believing God, is credited to him as righteousness. This is something available to all men I'd hold. Not just a predetermined few.

But the gospel is 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.'

I'm afraid I don't agree that the gospel is confined so. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe. Believe what? Well, God.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Not as simplex.

There are a number of factors that could impinge on this:
1) Genuine faith is required in Christ's crucifixion.
2) What happens to those who have never heard about Jesus is unclear.
3) It is possible for non-Christians pre-Christ to be saved.

As with all things, I find that things aren't always black and white. So I'd be in the other camp on the poll.

I possibly should have been more clear in my options but I had limited space. I know there are thought to be a number of exceptions to the rule such as the ones you mentioned. My poll options were meant to refer to people in general living today. Do you believe that general rule that is applied to the vast majority who had the opportunity to accept Christianity but didn't is that they all go to hell and all those who accept this gift go to heaven?

Jakkass wrote: »

As for not having a free choice, and having no way of determining whether the offer is real. Do you think I think that as a Christian?

No I don't think you think that but even if you think there are compelling reasons to pick christianity the fact remains it's not as simple as an offer of a gift that you are free to accept or reject. I have never rejected any gift, I can't because I don't think that there is any gift to reject. If I thought for one moment that this offer was genuine I'd accept it instantly. It's not a question of accepting or rejecting a gift, it's a question of whether you can bring yourself to believe that this particular gift is genuine above all others, at which point you'd have to be insane to reject it.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes it does. That's why I started the thread. Some say morality is relevant to salvations, other say the opposite and regardless of whose position I talk about I'm accused of misrepresenting people

and that's why I started the thread.

I realise that, Sam. Indeed, I could have told you you were confused after our last exchange. :pac: Please understand that I'm not chastising you for attempting to gain a little more understanding. Rather I am suggesting that your poll is flawed because it is based on your own misconceptions. The result is muddled options that lead to shoehorned responses. I think both JA and myself have flagged this.

If you don't understand the position of Christians how can you set the options of the poll? I can't imagine any decent survey would be framed under fundamental ignorance of the subject matter. Again, I think you would be far better off looking at the stance of the main denominations. Please consider all of this this constructive criticism.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sam Vimes said:

Morality is not irrelevant to salvation. It is irrelevant to initially being saved: we are not justified by our works, but by our faith. However, all true faith is thereafter accompanied by good works as we walk in newness of life.

if it's irrelvant to initially being saved then it's irrelevant to salvation. The confusion I have is people often referring to morality as a requirement for salvation but you are talking about it as a consequnece of it. And we've had that conversation so let's not have it again

wolfsbane wrote: »

But there is! Only a fool would commit himself to a God whom he was not sure was there. How can you be sure? Seek Him in prayer; ask Him to reveal to you whether the gospel is true or not, if He is the true God and if He saves all who come to Christ:
John 7:6 Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.


Don't accept anything until you know its true.


Seek:
Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

_________________________________________________________________
Psalm 34:8 Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good;
Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!

I have saught and so have many many former believers and we got no answers. But of course the response will be that we didn't truly seek so again, let's not repeat this conversation

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I realise that, Sam. Indeed, I could have told you you were confused after our last exchange. :pac: Please understand that I'm not chastising you for attempting to gain a little more understanding. Rather I am suggesting that your poll is flawed because it is based on your own misconceptions. The result is muddled options that lead to shoehorned responses. I think both JA and myself have flagged this.

If you don't understand the position of Christians how can you set the options of the poll? I can't imagine any decent survey would be framed under fundamental ignorance of the subject matter. Again, I think you would be far better off looking at the stance of the main denominations. Please consider all of this this constructive criticism.

I'm sure I would get a better understanding by looking at the stated position of the denominations but I think the problem is that an awful lot of people who call themselves Christian need to do the same. You say I am incorrectly conflating morality and salvation and I agree but still over 25% of people have picked morality related options.

What is your position on it? Not the few exceptions like people who never heard of Jesus, what rules apply people living today?