How are they saved if they never hear the gospel?

sparow · Nov 17, 2023

Derf said:
Death was a problem for man, so God made it a problem for Himself.

Do you think Adam's death was caused by something preceding Adam? Or was it caused by Adam's sin?

Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God, so this equates to Adam who was flesh and blood with the breath of God breathed into him, the same as the rest of us, and could not enter the kingdom.

The Bible does not specifically say, but what may have been the case and normal, was at the end of Adam's life he may have been translated into a form that could enter the kingdom of God, had he not fallen. But Adam and Eve were deceived by Satan, which suggests Satan fell first, and was the cause.

Satan was God's problem; the last six thousand years has been God recreating the Kingdom of God, and eliminating Satan and his angels at the same time.

Derf · Nov 17, 2023

sparow said:
Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God, so this equates to Adam who was flesh and blood with the breath of God breathed into him, the same as the rest of us, and could not enter the kingdom.

Adam was CLAY (or dust, or earth)...with the breath of God breathed into him.

sparow said:
The Bible does not specifically say, but what may have been the case and normal, was at the end of Adam's life he may have been translated into a form that could enter the kingdom of God, had he not fallen. But Adam and Eve were deceived by Satan, which suggests Satan fell first, and was the cause.

Yes, but not too much earlier. And though Satan tempted, Eve was deceived, and Adam was the sinner, though not deceived.
1 Timothy 2:14 KJV — And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

And Christ has defeated and is defeating death, so while Satan might have been A problem, I don't think he was THE problem.

sparow said:
Satan was God's problem; the last six thousand years has been God recreating the Kingdom of God, and eliminating Satan and his angels at the same time.

And death. Don't forget that God has been defeating death. We see it first in Christ's resurrection. I don't know if He had blood, but He certainly had flesh (and bones):
Luke 24:39 KJV — Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

He was the first fruits of the resurrection, which means that we will be resurrected in the same manner as He was.

sparow · Nov 18, 2023

Derf said:
Adam was CLAY (or dust, or earth)...with the breath of God breathed into him.

Yes, but not too much earlier. And though Satan tempted, Eve was deceived, and Adam was the sinner, though not deceived.
1 Timothy 2:14 KJV — And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

And Christ has defeated and is defeating death, so while Satan might have been A problem, I don't think he was THE problem.

And death. Don't forget that God has been defeating death. We see it first in Christ's resurrection. I don't know if He had blood, but He certainly had flesh (and bones):
Luke 24:39 KJV — Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

He was the first fruits of the resurrection, which means that we will be resurrected in the same manner as He was.

Adam, as far as clay is concerned, was no different to you or me. Adam lived for more than nine hundred years, so he was different in some way.

Death is something God created; it is not just mankind who dies the first death, but most forms of life. Do wales die because Adam sinned?

Because Jesus was born in a womb, I expect Adam was also.

Jesus said flesh and blood cannot see or enter into the kingdom of God. Jesus may well have been flesh and blood in Luke 24:39 butt not when he enters the kingdom.

Derf · Nov 18, 2023

sparow said:
Adam, as far as clay is concerned, was no different to you or me. Adam lived for more than nine hundred years, so he was different in some way.

Sure he was. We were born defective, because of Adam's sin, probably physically degenerate in our DNA.

sparow said:
Death is something God created;

Is it? Everything on earth and in the heavens was created in 6 days (Ex 20:11), but Adam died much later. It seems God created life and man or Satan created death, so to speak.

sparow said:
it is not just mankind who dies the first death, but most forms of life.

You assume. But the bible only speaks of animal death as a result of man's sin.

sparow said:
Do wales die because Adam sinned?

Probably.

sparow said:
Because Jesus was born in a womb, I expect Adam was also.

You have evidence to the contrary. Why would you hold onto such a notion?

sparow said:
Jesus said flesh and blood cannot see or enter into the kingdom of God. Jesus may well have been flesh and blood in Luke 24:39 butt not when he enters the kingdom.

If He ascended into heaven with that body of flesh and bone, why do you think he changed?

sparow · Nov 19, 2023

Derf said:
Sure he was. We were born defective, because of Adam's sin, probably physically degenerate in our DNA.

Is it? Everything on earth and in the heavens was created in 6 days (Ex 20:11), but Adam died much later. It seems God created life and man or Satan created death, so to speak.

You assume. But the bible only speaks of animal death as a result of man's sin.

Probably.

You have evidence to the contrary. Why would you hold onto such a notion?

If He ascended into heaven with that body of flesh and bone, why do you think he changed?

I do not take the creation story literally, it is a layman's explanation at best, neither a physicist nor a biologist could sink their teeth into it, because the story is not rational. I see the creation story as a parable, containing deep and dark revelation, and a starting point for a system of repeating patterns, of prophesy and history. The creation story is a type for which the next seven thousand years, the recreation of the Kingdom of God, are the anti-type.

Derf · Nov 19, 2023

sparow said:
I do not take the creation story literally, it is a layman's explanation at best, neither a physicist nor a biologist could sink their teeth into it, because the story is not rational.

I disagree with you. It is no more irrational than the big bang theory, and much more rational than evolutionary theory.

sparow said:
I see the creation story as a parable,

Many see it that way, but why? Isn't it because you have another, competing creation story that informs how you read the bible's creation story?

sparow said:
containing deep and dark revelation, and a starting point for a system of repeating patterns, of prophesy and history. The creation story is a type for which the next seven thousand years, the recreation of the Kingdom of God, are the anti-type.

That's nice, and maybe it is, but being a type for Christ didn't make Joseph a character in a parable. Or Joshua or David or Solomon, etc.

Der Alte · Nov 19, 2023

sparow said:
I do not take the creation story literally, it is a layman's explanation at best, neither a physicist nor a biologist could sink their teeth into it, because the story is not rational. I see the creation story as a parable, containing deep and dark revelation, and a starting point for a system of repeating patterns, of prophesy and history. The creation story is a type for which the next seven thousand years, the recreation of the Kingdom of God, are the anti-type.

A Parable is a specific type of figure of speech. The word "parable" derives from the Greek word "parabolo" which means to lay or throw beside. Something unknown/not understood is explained by comparing it to something known or understood. See e,g.

Matthew 13:24
(24) Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:,...

If you want to classify the creation story as a figure of speech, you will need to come up with another one. An 18th century scholar E.V. Bullinger came up with about 212 "Figures of speech used in the Bible" and published a book by that name. Bon chance.

sparow · Nov 26, 2023

Der Alte said:
A Parable is a specific type of figure of speech. The word "parable" derives from the Greek word "parabolo" which means to lay or throw beside. Something unknown/not understood is explained by comparing it to something known or understood. See e,g.

Matthew 13:24

(24) Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:,...
If you want to classify the creation story as a figure of speech, you will need to come up with another one. An 18th century scholar E.V. Bullinger came up with about 212 "Figures of speech used in the Bible" and published a book by that name. Bon chance.

Communication is always difficult, a figure of speech may be a parable or a parable maybe a figure of speech, but figure of speech is certainly not a universal definition of parable.

Parable are normally used to make universal statements where the details are not directly relevant, definable or where the details would be argumentative or disputable.

Strong 4912, describes the Hebrew semantics, Strong 3850 describes the Greek, which is only a portion of the Hebrew. What ever it was that Jesus spoke in, He was fulfilling OT prophesy so His method of speech is defined in OT Prophesy.

Because God does not Change, Jesus's method of speech was the same as the method of speech of the Word of God in the OT, making the creation story not literal.

Der Alte · Nov 26, 2023

sparow said:
Communication is always difficult, a figure of speech may be a parable or a parable maybe a figure of speech, but figure of speech is certainly not a universal definition of parable.
Parable are normally used to make universal statements where the details are not directly relevant, definable or where the details would be argumentative or disputable.
Strong 4912, describes the Hebrew semantics, Strong 3850 describes the Greek, which is only a portion of the Hebrew. What ever it was that Jesus spoke in, He was fulfilling OT prophesy so His method of speech is defined in OT Prophesy.
Because God does not Change, Jesus's method of speech was the same as the method of speech of the Word of God in the OT, making the creation story not literal.

Thank you for this unsupported opinion. But no thanks I will rely on scholars who know what they are talking about.

sparow · Nov 26, 2023

Derf said:
I disagree with you. It is no more irrational than the big bang theory, and much more rational than evolutionary theory.

Many see it that way, but why? Isn't it because you have another, competing creation story that informs how you read the bible's creation story?

That's nice, and maybe it is, but being a type for Christ didn't make Joseph a character in a parable. Or Joshua or David or Solomon, etc.

I would not put the creation story in the same bag as the big bang theory, and the evolution theory.

Even rationalism requires context and definition. I do not regard you as disagreeing, but of not understanding.

Derf · Nov 26, 2023

sparow said:
I would not put the creation story in the same bag as the big bang theory, and the evolution theory.

Why not?

sparow said:
Even rationalism requires context and definition. I do not regard you as disagreeing, but of not understanding.

How magnanimous.

sparow · Nov 26, 2023

Derf said:
Why not?

How magnanimous.

The creation story written by Moses, confirmed as valid scripture, as it was 2000 years ago, by Jeus Christ, whereas the theories you mention are doctrines of men.

sparow · Nov 26, 2023

Der Alte said:
Thank you for this unsupported opinion. But no thanks I will rely on scholars who know what they are talking about.

You would do better if you relied on Jesus, men will lead you into a ditch. I found some supporting scripture, Matt 15:8-20, and Lk 6:39.

Derf · Nov 27, 2023

sparow said:
The creation story written by Moses, confirmed as valid scripture, as it was 2000 years ago, by Jeus Christ, whereas the theories you mention are doctrines of men.

Then why say the bible's creation story is not rational? Here's the dictionary definition of rational:
"based on or in accordance with reason or logic."
Why isn't Genesis 1 in accordance with reason or logic?

Der Alte · Nov 27, 2023

sparow said:
You would do better if you relied on Jesus, men will lead you into a ditch. I found some supporting scripture, Matt 15:8-20, and Lk 6:39.

What do these two passages tell us about parables and other figures of speech used in the Bible, which is the topic I was addressing? Let me know when you decide to address this topic. And FYI, I do rely on scripture in more than 1 language. I delivered the invitational prayer in my church in Korean not too long ago.

sparow · Nov 28, 2023

Derf said:
Then why say the bible's creation story is not rational? Here's the dictionary definition of rational:
"based on or in accordance with reason or logic."
Why isn't Genesis 1 in accordance with reason or logic?

Now you are asking me to be a Philosopher. "based on or in accordance with reason or logic," is only a part of what your dictionary says, even then your dictionary only offers the most common usage, it is not an authority. When you use the word “rational” you should imply in the sentence what you mean by rational, such that if the word was blanked your sentence would still be understood.

I find that man is made from dust or clay, rational, because I can observe that being reverse engineered. Whether God did it is something I have to believe.

God said let there be light; this is not something I can test or apply reason or logic to; the big bang theory is where other men have tried to disagree with God using their logic and reason. So logic and reason can also be tools of madmen.

Derf · Nov 28, 2023

sparow said:
Now you are asking me to be a Philosopher. "based on or in accordance with reason or logic," is only a part of what your dictionary says, even then your dictionary only offers the most common usage, it is not an authority. When you use the word “rational” you should imply in the sentence what you mean by rational, such that if the word was blanked your sentence would still be understood.

I find that man is made from dust or clay, rational, because I can observe that being reverse engineered. Whether God did it is something I have to believe.

God said let there be light; this is not something I can test or apply reason or logic to; the big bang theory is where other men have tried to disagree with God using their logic and reason. So logic and reason can also be tools of madmen.

That doesn't mean they use them correctly. Ive been impressed by the intelligent design folks' use of logic to show that we expect machines to have a designer. This actually follows evolutionists' logic up to a point of departure (see Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker).

Logic had to be discarded by Dawkins when it no longer yielded to his paradigm. Not so IDers.

sparow · Nov 29, 2023

Der Alte said:
What do these two passages tell us about parables and other figures of speech used in the Bible, which is the topic I was addressing? Let me know when you decide to address this topic. And FYI, I do rely on scripture in more than 1 language. I delivered the invitational prayer in my church in Korean not too long ago.

It is not my intention to be personally critical of individuals, but contests do arise.

Having established that “parable” is inadequate to represent the Biblical concept, but it is the best the English language has to offer. What ever it was that Jesus spoke in, He always spoke that way except sometimes when He spoke privately with the apostles; which means Matt 15, and Lk 6, are loaded with indirect information.

I believe Matt 15:9 does address your topic, “ But in vain they worship me, teaching for doctrines precepts of men”

Matt 13 and Mk 4 teach a lot about what Jesus was doing regarding parables.

sparow · Nov 29, 2023

Derf said:
That doesn't mean they use them correctly. Ive been impressed by the intelligent design folks' use of logic to show that we expect machines to have a designer. This actually follows evolutionists' logic up to a point of departure (see Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker).

Logic had to be discarded by Dawkins when it no longer yielded to his paradigm. Not so IDers.

I would not use Dawkins as an authority for anything.

I recall a couple of debates regarding God from you tube, Where one person was like the ringmaster in a circus, the other being innocent and naive; my conclusion was that debates prove who is the best performer.

There is the hypotheses that God exists. This is called a positive hypotheses, the possibility of it having a positive solution only requires that God have a definition.

There is the Hypotheses that God does not exist. This is called a negative hypotheses; because of the mechanics of a negative hypotheses, the chance of a negative outcome (that is that God does not exist) is zero. If the hypotheses fails, then God exists. For Dawkins to say God does not exist, he would first need to define God, shooting himself in the foot.

Derf · Nov 29, 2023

sparow said:
I would not use Dawkins as an authority for anything.

Nor would I...BECAUSE he has proven himself to reject rational thinking in favor of religious dogmatism. When one sees evidence of design and rejects the mere possibility of a designer, one is the very definition of a fool.

sparow said:
I recall a couple of debates regarding God from you tube, Where one person was like the ringmaster in a circus, the other being innocent and naive; my conclusion was that debates prove who is the best performer.

True.

sparow said:
There is the hypotheses that God exists. This is called a positive hypotheses, the possibility of it having a positive solution only requires that God have a definition.

Having a definition doesn't prove something exists.

sparow said:
There is the Hypotheses that God does not exist. This is called a negative hypotheses; because of the mechanics of a negative hypotheses, the chance of a negative outcome (that is that God does not exist) is zero. If the hypotheses fails, then God exists. For Dawkins to say God does not exist, he would first need to define God, shooting himself in the foot.

And defining something doesn't bring it into existence.

How are they saved if they never hear the gospel?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads