HEAVEN

antiskeptic

homer911 wrote: »

Have you heard of the New Covenant?

Hebrews 8: 7-13, Jeremiah 31:31-34

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant#Christian_view

So how were people saved in the old testament? Before they could have heard of Christ and the gospel. Under the Old Convenant?

Why does Paul, in what is the exposition of the way of salvation, start out by pointing to Abraham's believing God (not believing in Jesus, not believing in Gods existence, but believing what God said in the matter of his obtaining an heir) as cornerstone in his construction of the argument of salvation by faith (and not the Law/Old Convenant) - if there was any different way of salvation than the same way that Abraham was saved?

JeffKenna

19warrior81 wrote: »

I would love to hear what peoples interpretation of heaven are,and would you still enter heaven knowing a loved one is not their or in hell maybe

I've never really thought too much into what heaven actually is, seems a bit pointless when we won't know until the time comes. If a loved one wasn't there then I would point blank refuse to enter. I guess I've inadvertently answered your first question, I would imagine heaven being the actual reunification with loved ones.

santing

antiskeptic wrote: »

So how were people saved in the old testament? Before they could have heard of Christ and the gospel. Under the Old Convenant?

Why does Paul, in what is the exposition of the way of salvation, start out by pointing to Abraham's believing God (not believing in Jesus, not believing in Gods existence, but believing what God said in the matter of his obtaining an heir) as cornerstone in his construction of the argument of salvation by faith (and not the Law/Old Convenant) - if there was any different way of salvation than the same way that Abraham was saved?

Great question! There never was and never will be any other way of salvation but by faith in the God who saves. For instance of Moses we read (long before the birth of Christ)

By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to endure ill- treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. (Hebrews 11)

And famous is of course the explanation of Job, contemporary with Abraham:

"As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last He will take His stand on the earth.
"Even after my skin is destroyed,
Yet from my flesh I shall see God;
Whom I myself shall behold,
and whom my eyes will see and not another.
My heart faints within me!

antiskeptic

santing wrote: »

Great question! There never was and never will be any other way of salvation but by faith in the God who saves. For instance of Moses we read (long before the birth of Christ)

Homer seems to think otherwise. What that way might be is something he may have a view on.

hinault

homer911 wrote: »

Seriously? Of course it matters! We've discussed this before. If it didnt matter, then Christians would not have been called to go and make disciples of every nation. If it didnt matter then Christians would be doing everyone a favour by not sharing the Good News with them, and thereby assuring them of salvation by a God they have never heard of!

The Gospels tell of the Apostles witnessing Jesus speaking with Elijah and Moses.
The presumption is that both Elijah and Moses are in Heaven.

It's a complex issue ie. the eternal fate of those who lived prior to Jesus ministry.

But rather than dwelling on who may or who may be in Heaven, each of us should instead concentrate on our own spiritual lives rather than speculating about the eternal fate of others.

What is clear to each of us here and now today, is the teaching of Jesus Christ as it applies to our lives.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

The Gospels tell of the Apostles witnessing Jesus speaking with Elijah and Moses.
The presumption is that both Elijah and Moses are in Heaven.

It's a complex issue ie. the eternal fate of those who lived prior to Jesus ministry.

Is it that complex? Or any more complex than how men are saved today (given the multiple views on what salvation by grace (and, in some folks view works)) constitutes?

We are given indications that the mechanism of salvation is and always has been the same. If by faith now, then by faith then (with the argument being what saving faith is exactly) and if works then works now and then. If by both (somehow) then both. I don't see any other components which would be argued over.

It has a certain ring to it: that all men considered equal before God and there being nothing new under the sun means the mechanism of salvation will essentially be the same in all cases.

But rather than dwelling on who may or who may be in Heaven, each of us should instead concentrate on our own spiritual lives rather than speculating about the eternal fate of others.

It becomes important when considering how to deal with the issue of how the Christian message is to be communicated. Apologetics is frequently used as a means of convincing others to believe. But if a person can't be argued into the Kingdom then what point in that activity?

If we can accurately identify the mechanism of salvation then our outreach can, perhaps, be made fit for purpose.

What is clear to each of us here and now today, is the teaching of Jesus Christ as it applies to our lives.

It's of little use to folk today who've either never heard of Jesus or for whom his message is but one of a billion competing ones.

sbsquarepants

homer911 wrote: »

The beauty of it is that God knows we can never live up to his standards, that's where grace comes in..

That's the beauty?

Here's a test I know you can only fail? I could have made you so that you were better able to pass, I could have left you as you are but made the test a little bit easier, but I didn't, I chose to deliberately set the standard so high that you could never achieve it.

That's the beauty?

homer911

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's the beauty?

Here's a test I know you can only fail? I could have made you so that you were better able to pass, I could have left you as you are but made the test a little bit easier, but I didn't, I chose to deliberately set the standard so high that you could never achieve it.

That's the beauty?

Absolutely, otherwise it would be salvation through works, or we would spend our lives being unsure of our salvation.

antiskeptic

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's the beauty?

Here's a test I know you can only fail? I could have made you so that you were better able to pass, I could have left you as you are but made the test a little bit easier, but I didn't, I chose to deliberately set the standard so high that you could never achieve it.

That's the beauty?

It's not choosing to set a standard high.

God is unable to tolerate sin. It's as impossible for him to do that as it is impossible for us to tolerate and oxygen free environment. His nature is clean, pure, spotless (a.k.a. holy) and cannot be around that which isn't holy.

His response to that which is filthy, impure, unholy is wrath. Again, it's his nature to respond that way. And insofar as our natures are in alignment which his (a.k.a. to the degree our morality hasn't been compromised by our own sinfulness and remains in alignment with his) it's our nature to hate that which is filthy, impure, unholy. For example, our alignment with him generally has us hate the actions of a paedophile, or the actions of a coward who let's other perish so as to save their skin. Its right to hate such things.

For us to be in his presence we need to be holy too. We cannot work our way to holiness: we have our past sin needing dealing with. And we can't no matter how hard we try, avoid future sin. Which means the only outcome for us is to face God's wrath. There is no testing being done as such.

God is also love. He loves us. He has a way in which his rightful wrath against that which is unholy can be deflected away from us, the object of his love. The way he achieves this is to deflect it onto Jesus.

We obtain access to this deflection by faith. Not by passing a test.

antiskeptic

homer911 wrote: »

Absolutely, otherwise it would be salvation through works, or we would spend our lives being unsure of our salvation.

Any response to how you think Abraham was saved? The mechanism by which, I mean?

uck51js9zml2yt

antiskeptic wrote: »

Any response to how you think Abraham was saved? The mechanism by which, I mean?

By Faith. Scripture is very clear on this.

antiskeptic

Crystal Proud Rationalist wrote: »

By Faith. Scripture is very clear on this.

Faith in what (bear in mind our subject, Abraham, who didn't believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved by that kind of faith).

We're looking for what lies at the root of the mechanism by which a person is saved. If there is only one way of salvation then that one way must fit all people at all times. There must be a common element applicable to all.

What is that element? What is the irreducible essence of the way of salvation?

uck51js9zml2yt

As it says in Hebrews "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". And then goes on to speak of Moses, Abraham,Rahab who inherited the promise being able to see Him who is invisible.
When you come into Faith, then you will understand. If you don't have it then I can see why works are so important to support the lack of assurance.

homer911

antiskeptic wrote: »

Any response to how you think Abraham was saved? The mechanism by which, I mean?

Rather than requote another site:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-salvation.html
Lots of biblical references supporting salvation through faith

tayto lover

Where will a good living person go after he dies if he doesn't believe in Heaven or Hell?
Does the Bible say anything about that?

uck51js9zml2yt

tayto lover wrote: »

Where will a good living person go after he dies if he doesn't believe in Heaven or Hell?
Does the Bible say anything about that?

I suggest you read it to find out:)

tayto lover

Crystal Proud Rationalist wrote: »

I suggest you read it to find out:)

Any idea what section I might find it please?

uck51js9zml2yt

tayto lover wrote: »

Any idea what section I might find it please?

Start with the gospels and keep going to revelation. A good start is John Gospel.
You don't have to read it in order but definitely start with the 4 Gospels

Severard

Many religions throughout history have had many different interpretations of what heaven entails yet they do appear to have one thing in common and that is that heaven will last for eternity. To allow someone to exist for eternity is to unload unimaginable cruelty on them.

What ever they want to do, they will do... and they will continue to exist.

What ever they are not good at, they can try to do and will get good at... and they will continue to exist.

What ever they can possibly imagine doing, they will do... and they will continue to exist.

1000 years a person would be able to cope with.

10000 years and then it would start to be come unbearable.

100000 years and a person would easily be insane.

And yet this doesn't even scratch the surface.

Also this video has good points on what heaven would be like as well according to the Bible, which doesn't look that great:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RT1DTpF_7w&ab_channel=Underlings

You said you would love to hear people's interpretation of what heaven are. Well there you go.

Lastly would you really want to co-exist with someone that is as evil as the God of the Bible? I know I wouldn't:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6twSN8ZS_VA&bpctr=1442519000&ab_channel=FFreeThinker

antiskeptic

Crystal Proud Rationalist wrote: »

As it says in Hebrews "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". And then goes on to speak of Moses, Abraham,Rahab who inherited the promise being able to see Him who is invisible.

The faith that allows one to see the things of God isn't the same kind of faith talked of as saving faith (the faith with produces salvation in the first place). The former is inherited - better said, granted - but isn't the cause of it being granted (it can't cause itself). We're looking at what it is that produces salvation*

Abraham believed what God said (he had faith) and it was credited as righteousness (he was saved - at least, that's the model used by Paul in his argument on the subject). What, I have been asking Homer, is the essence of the faith people are saved by today (who might hear of Jesus) and people long ago (who won't have heard of Jesus)? It must be the same essence, whatever about the different clothes it's dressed up in.


-


To my mind, believing what God says seems to be the common denominator: whether it is the words of Jesus (God) or any other way God communicates to man. Suppose a man is convicted by his conscience (aside from hearing anything about Jesus). Isn't conscience from God: a way of God speaking to man and a way that man can believe what God is saying - without him even believing that God exists? An atheist has a conscience (God's general communication to all men on the matter of righteousness) and when he agrees with his conscience he is agreeing with, and believing to be true, what God is saying. Even when, in his rational mind, he doesn't believe in the existence of God.

Furthermore, he (the atheist) can also be convicted that there is something fundamentally, constitutionally wrong with himself (without believing in sin in the religious sense, for believing in sin in a religious sense necessarily means believing in God's existence). If he comes to that total conviction, is he not believing what God is saying (for it is God, through conscience, saying it). And if that belief leads him to desperation. What if he tries everything to find a solution (drugs, success, distractions, other religions, spirituality), a release from that turmoil - but fails. He might reach the point of surrender where he recognizes his great need but recognizes too, his inability to rectify himself. He might commit suicide to escape. He might too, be brought by the depth of conviction/turmoil to cry "Oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death?"

If such a one believes God to this extent, can that be the criteria for God saving? Certainly the New Testament abounds with such cases. Where we are told of their inner state, it's people in desperate straits who have their eyes opened to who Christ is. They are the ones who have been saved.

When you come into Faith, then you will understand.

I think I do understand. The common denominator lies in men, of whatever hue, believing what God says to them (not in the general sense of men having consciences but in the above, overwhelmingly convicted way). Whether they believe in God at the time or not needn't be the issue. The other common denominator appears to be desperation: the reaching of the end of own ability to obtain something vitally important to them - be it physical or psychological healing, an heir (in the case of Abraham), forgiveness, release from demons...

Atheists commonly accuse believers of using "God" as a crutch. How right they are - he only turns up to the broken who believe they are fatally broken. To ones at the end of their tether. Be it Abraham, the thief on the cross, me.


Suffice to say, I didn't believe in the existence of God when I believed God and was saved. I was granted faith to believe in God's existence - but that sort of faith was post-salvation. Not the cause of it.

-

I was asking Homer how it was Abraham was saved since he seems to be implying that faith in Christ is necessary - something which Abraham didn't express in his being saved.



*Calvinists say that God grants saving faith without any contribution/act/influence/reaction of man. Which raises the question "why does God grant it to this man and not that". I find their answer, "God can grant to whom he wants" (which of course he could) or "he is sovereign" unsatisfactory. It doesn't answer the question why he would grant to this man and not that.

J C

Lest we forget ... Heaven is for real ... and here is the trailer for a film based on a true story about a near death experience of a young boy who claims to have seen Heaven

antiskeptic

homer911 wrote: »

Rather than requote another site:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-salvation.html
Lots of biblical references supporting salvation through faith

I'd prefer to discuss with you in your own words. I agree salvation is by faith. But faith in what exactly? Such as that it applies to people who we know are saved but who never knew of Jesus.

sbsquarepants

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not choosing to set a standard high.

God is unable to tolerate sin. It's as impossible for him to do that as it is impossible for us to tolerate and oxygen free environment. His nature is clean, pure, spotless (a.k.a. holy) and cannot be around that which isn't holy.

His response to that which is filthy, impure, unholy is wrath. Again, it's his nature to respond that way. And insofar as our natures are in alignment which his (a.k.a. to the degree our morality hasn't been compromised by our own sinfulness and remains in alignment with his) it's our nature to hate that which is filthy, impure, unholy. For example, our alignment with him generally has us hate the actions of a paedophile, or the actions of a coward who let's other perish so as to save their skin. Its right to hate such things.

For us to be in his presence we need to be holy too. We cannot work our way to holiness: we have our past sin needing dealing with. And we can't no matter how hard we try, avoid future sin. Which means the only outcome for us is to face God's wrath. There is no testing being done as such.

God is also love. He loves us. He has a way in which his rightful wrath against that which is unholy can be deflected away from us, the object of his love. The way he achieves this is to deflect it onto Jesus.

We obtain access to this deflection by faith. Not by passing a test.

Surely god is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible for him.

The god you describe sounds like a spoilt toddler unable to control his emotions, flying into a rage when his toy won't do what he wants.

antiskeptic

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Surely god is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible for him.

God not being able to make a square circle doesn't impact his omnipotence. Holy can't be unholy - it's not a lack of potence that makes that impossible. God can't not be God.

The god you describe sounds like a spoilt toddler unable to control his emotions, flying into a rage when his toy won't do what he wants.

The god you infer sounds like he's being evaluated against human traits.

He made us in his image and likeness, without making us God. You're making him in our image and likeness but spoiltness, selfishness, unjustified rages are human traits - the product of our being sinful.

If God isn't sinful then these traits can't be his.

uck51js9zml2yt

I watched some of the Thomas Kent reinterment today.
99 years after his death and the priest still isn't sure he got to heaven.
What a hopeless life is offered people within Roman Catholicism. You live your life and even in death have no assurance of Eternal Life. hinault even confirmed the hopelessness of his belief.
The total anthesis of what Jesus came to give.
As John says in one of his letters. "I have written these things that you might Know you have Eternal Life"

J C

Severard wrote: »

Many religions throughout history have had many different interpretations of what heaven entails yet they do appear to have one thing in common and that is that heaven will last for eternity. To allow someone to exist for eternity is to unload unimaginable cruelty on them.

What ever they want to do, they will do... and they will continue to exist.

What ever they are not good at, they can try to do and will get good at... and they will continue to exist.

What ever they can possibly imagine doing, they will do... and they will continue to exist.

1000 years a person would be able to cope with.

10000 years and then it would start to be come unbearable.

100000 years and a person would easily be insane.

We are eternal creatures designed to live forever ... so we will have no problem living 100,000 years.

19warrior81

i Read somewhere that no-one is sent to to hell,they are given a choice on judgement day.you accept or reject god the decision is yours. any views on this thanks for all your replies.

God lives...............

J C

19warrior81 wrote: »

i Read somewhere that no-one is sent to to hell,they are given a choice on judgement day.you accept or reject god the decision is yours. any views on this thanks for all your replies.

God lives...............

That is certainly a logical conclusion from the justice of God towards (many) people who have never heard of Jesus Christ and therefore hadn't an opportunity to be Saved ... these include people who lived before Jesus was born into this Earthly realm, unborn children and infants who die.
I think, however, that the choice is given at the point of death (and not at the Judgement) ... as there is fixity of destination once one is completely within the spirit world.

antiskeptic

J C wrote: »

That is certainly a logical conclusion from the justice of God towards (many) people who have never heard of Jesus Christ and therefore hadn't an opportunity to be Saved ... these include people who lived before Jesus was born into this Earthly realm, unborn children and infants who die.

What about Abraham? He and many others had never heard of Jesus Christ but displayed all the signs of having been born again.They didn't have to wait until their deathbed.

antiskeptic

19warrior81 wrote: »

i Read somewhere that no-one is sent to to hell,they are given a choice on judgement day.you accept or reject god the decision is yours. any views on this thanks for all your replies.

God lives...............

I'm not sure how this would work. As in life, a person on their deathbed would need convincing reason to suppose that it's God (and not something else, something with natural explanation) before they can be expected to believe it's God making the offer. If they are given convincing reason they will believe. If they aren't then they won't .. and can hardly be condemned for not being convinced by that which is unconvincing.

In life, it's hardly illogical or irrational not to believe a book (the Bible) whose authorship you've got no reason to suppose is from God, is from God. So why would you believe, what are quite dramatic claims, from a book whose authority you have no reason to believe in. You would need a God-inspired conviction to believe it was from God - in which case it's not you choosing to believe, but rather, God enabling you to believe.

Which is kind of how it's reported in the Bible. Think of all the cases in the gospels (and in Pauls experience on the Damascus road) where it is revealed to people who Jesus is. They somehow have their eyes opened to who he is and as a result believe. It wasn't the miracles that made them believe (since miracles didn't make others believe)