Could an atheist go to heaven?

[Light of the East]

Please, Light, post for us the scripture wherein Jesus said the unbeliever shall enter the kingdom of Heaven.

St. Paul isn't good enough for you?

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Revelation 21:8

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

St. Paul isn't good enough for you?

Jesus isn't good enough for you?

Mark 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Matthew 7: 17-23 refutes what Frank claimed.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'"

 

[2Timothy2:15]

And you would be ..... wrong.

You have taken those verses out of context. Go back and read them in the context in which they were written. St. Paul is quoting Psalm 14, which is talking about the wicked. When you read Psalm 14, you will see a contrast made between the wicked (described in Romans 3) and the righteous.

Now go find a concordance and look up all the times in the OT and NT that God declares certain people righteous. Abel was righteous. (Heb. 11:4) Zacharias and Elizabeth were righteous (Luke 1:5).

Plenty of people existed whom God declared righteous in the Bible, so there must be a different meaning to what you have taken out of context there.

Actually you are the one that is wrong. You quoted Romans 2 and are trying to apply it to the atheist in some strange way. You kind of apply it to some group of people that have not heard the gospel ( I guess some tribe in the amazon), but then are tying it in your mind to atheist who willfully reject the gospel. You mention context, but if you study context of Romans 2 you will find that it is about the self righteous Jews who think they hold to the law and the Lord drawing people by to the GOSPEL by what he has written on their hearts. In fact, he is not negating the gospel but doing just the opposite.

Abel was not righteous, his act of faith in offering were righteous, there is a difference. The bible can not contradict itself. It none are righteous that means wholly righteous, not that people can not do righteous acts or have righteous anger, or righteous faith.

The bible also calls Rehab righteous. Does that mean she was beyond reproach? No, it was her act of believing that was righteous. How about the mid-wives who lied about Hebrew babies being born? Were they beyond reproach because they lied to Pharaoh and God was endorsing lying? No, it was the act of disobedience to Pharaoh and blessing of Hebrews and belief that were righteous, not that they were totally righteous.

 

[Wolfe]

Firstly, I wanna ask, did I miss something? Who's Frank?

Secondly I'd appreciate it if we were kinder to each other?
Instead of being snide.

And you would be ..... wrong.

Wow! Way to entirely miss the point I said. Did you even bother to look up the verses I quoted?

I don't mean to offend by saying this, but the way you're disagreeing comes off as mean, and arrogant.
Specifically the second one.
This goes for anyone that wants to reply this way, I can't control you, but I'd ask you use a bit more tact when replying.
If there was another snide remark, I missed it, or it just didn't come off like that to me.
I dunno if you meant for them to be like that or not, but it definitely comes off as, I know more than you, shut up. Which in my opinion has no place in a debate.
A better way (again in my opinion) to do it, would just simply state your case of why you're right, instead of saying the other one is wrong. Just has too many negative connotations.

Again I apologize if you think this is rude, I'm merely just trying to keep the peace

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Great post Wolfe.

I too would apologize if I came off as uncharitable. I think in my case what may have contributed to that if it was deemed as such is tiring of the number of conversations that are initiated here in an effort to refute God's word. And lead the new faithful especially astray or to cause them to doubt.

Righteous anger is spoken of in the Bible. Jesus demonstrated it when he overturned the tables of the money changers who worked outside his Fathers house. However, on a forum I do believe we should be charitable as much as possible. And if we feel riled up, push back our chair and take a walk and consider what would best example Jesus and his responses to that which first upset us.

Again Wolfe, thank you for your post.

 

[Wolfe]

Great post Wolfe.

I too would apologize if I came off as uncharitable. I think in my case what may have contributed to that if it was deemed as such is tiring of the number of conversations that are initiated here in an effort to refute God's word. And lead the new faithful especially astray or to cause them to doubt.

Righteous anger is spoken of in the Bible. Jesus demonstrated it when he overturned the tables of the money changers who worked outside his Fathers house. However, on a forum I do believe we should be charitable as much as possible. And if we feel riled up, push back our chair and take a walk and consider what would best example Jesus and his responses to that which first upset us.

Again Wolfe, thank you for your post.

Thank you!
I would like to say sorry for making a thread that would make any one feel that way, I never meant to challenge the Bible. I only meant to better understand its meaning

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Thank you!
I would like to say sorry for making a thread that would make any one feel that way, I never meant to challenge the Bible. I only meant to better understand its meaning

Please, I was not speaking about your thread. I apologize if that is what you inferred from my remarks.

 

[Wolfe]

Please, I was not speaking about your thread. I apologize if that is what you inferred from my remarks.

I think in my case what may have contributed to that if it was deemed as such is tiring of the number of conversations that are initiated here in an effort to refute God's word. And lead the new faithful especially astray or to cause them to doubt.

I misunderstood this then, let the apologetic train keep on rollin' lol

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

I misunderstood this then, let the apologetic train keep on rollin' lol

 

[Basil the Great]

It is always possible that God could reveal Himself at the moment of death to an atheist and give said person one last chance, especially if said person has lived a life of love and mercy. Once again, I cannot understand how some of you folks think you can effectively speak for God and tell us upon whom He may or may not extend his mercy. That responsibility is left up to God alone. The Bible shows us much about God, but not everything. There is still plenty of mystery surrounding the Creator, especially concerning the afterlife and whose names are written in the Book of Life.

 

[Basil the Great]

Jesus isn't good enough for you?

Mark 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

Yes, but could not not be such a thing as "baptism by desire" and such a thing as "implicit belief"? A few of the Early Church Fathers seemed to teach this. Again, I am not talking about the likelihood of massive numbers of atheists/pagans being saved. I just don't think that it is wise for us to close the door entirely against those that might not come to know Jesus in an explicit way in this life.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Yes, but could not not be such a thing as "baptism by desire" and such a thing as "implicit belief"? A few of the Early Church Fathers seemed to teach this. Again, I am not talking about the likelihood of massive numbers of atheists/pagans being saved. I just don't think that it is wise for us to close the door entirely against those that might not come to know Jesus in an explicit way in this life.

Everyone has the opportunity to find Jesus.
John 3:16.
To know Jesus by desire is the first step to answering the call that implants that desire to seek him out. But desire does not save that atheist.
Jesus told us how to come to the Father. It is through Gods grace that we are saved. Not our choice but His.

 

[Light of the East]

Actually you are the one that is wrong. You quoted Romans 2 and are trying to apply it to the atheist in some strange way. You kind of apply it to some group of people that have not heard the gospel ( I guess some tribe in the amazon), but then are tying it in your mind to atheist who willfully reject the gospel. You mention context, but if you study context of Romans 2 you will find that it is about the self righteous Jews who think they hold to the law and the Lord drawing people by to the GOSPEL by what he has written on their hearts. In fact, he is not negating the gospel but doing just the opposite.

Abel was not righteous, his act of faith in offering were righteous, there is a difference. The bible can not contradict itself. It none are righteous that means wholly righteous, not that people can not do righteous acts or have righteous anger, or righteous faith.

The bible also calls Rehab righteous. Does that mean she was beyond reproach? No, it was her act of believing that was righteous. How about the mid-wives who lied about Hebrew babies being born? Were they beyond reproach because they lied to Pharaoh and God was endorsing lying? No, it was the act of disobedience to Pharaoh and blessing of Hebrews and belief that were righteous, not that they were totally righteous.

Wow! I continue to be absolutely amazed at Protestant theological gymnastics which are done when someone doesn't like what the Bible says.

Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Noah was righteous. Verse says nothing about his deeds. Says Noah was righteous.

Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Scripture says they were righteous. Nothing about the deeds is separate from them.

Were they righteous enough to bring about the salvation of the cosmos and Creation? No. But they were righteous, along with all others who are called righteous in Scripture.

I used to be a Fundamentalist. I know how those verses in Romans are twisted out of context to try to prove that people are sinners. Yes, we are sinners, but use the Bible rightly.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Actually you are the one that is wrong. You quoted Romans 2 and are trying to apply it to the atheist in some strange way. You kind of apply it to some group of people that have not heard the gospel ( I guess some tribe in the amazon), but then are tying it in your mind to atheist who willfully reject the gospel. You mention context, but if you study context of Romans 2 you will find that it is about the self righteous Jews who think they hold to the law and the Lord drawing people by to the GOSPEL by what he has written on their hearts. In fact, he is not negating the gospel but doing just the opposite.

Abel was not righteous, his act of faith in offering were righteous, there is a difference. The bible can not contradict itself. It none are righteous that means wholly righteous, not that people can not do righteous acts or have righteous anger, or righteous faith.

The bible also calls Rehab righteous. Does that mean she was beyond reproach? No, it was her act of believing that was righteous. How about the mid-wives who lied about Hebrew babies being born? Were they beyond reproach because they lied to Pharaoh and God was endorsing lying? No, it was the act of disobedience to Pharaoh and blessing of Hebrews and belief that were righteous, not that they were totally righteous.

Wow! I continue to be absolutely amazed at Protestant theological gymnastics which are done when someone doesn't like what the Bible says.

Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Noah was righteous. Verse says nothing about his deeds. Says Noah was righteous.

Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Scripture says they were righteous. Nothing about the deeds is separate from them.

Were they righteous enough to bring about the salvation of the cosmos and Creation? No. But they were righteous, along with all others who are called righteous in Scripture.

I used to be a Fundamentalist. I know how those verses in Romans are twisted out of context to try to prove that people are sinners. Yes, we are sinners, but use the Bible rightly.

Then we read about Noah getting drunk and being naked....I guess that is what the Lord was talking about? With all due respect it is your theology that is out of line. Also, there is no need for condescending tone.

"To prove that people are sinners". What does that mean? Are you without sin?

 

[Wolfe]

Then we read about Noah getting drunk and being naked....I guess that is what the Lord was talking about? With all due respect it is your theology that is out of line. Also, there is no need for condescending tone.

"To prove that people are sinners". What does that mean? Are you without sin?

Well in his defense, he said. Yes, WE are sinners.

But I completely agree with you on the condescending tone, didn't get a lot of it from that post, but his other post were kinda that way.
We can't be "wrong" per se, when it comes to interpreting it, on cryptic, or hard to understand verses, but if you know something, or feel you know something that the other person doesn't. Don't call them wrong, simply present your argument. saying they're wrong only brings negativity(most of the time anyway)

Though on the topic of this I refer back to emmys' post

Dear Wolfe. Could an atheist go to heaven? Heaven is a Christian`s home, and why would atheists want to join them? God our Heavenly Father is there and Jesus our Saviour. To go to Heaven we have to follow Jesus, we have to become like Jesus, loving and caring. In Heaven there is no room for selfish behaviour, and any unloving deed.
Unless the atheist changes his, or her way of life, there is no room for any unloving or selfish being.
But the atheist can change while still on Earth, in Matthew 7: 7-10: we are told: " ask and you shall receive,"
just ask for Love and Compassion, then thank God and share all love and compassion with a neighbour. (neighbour is all we know and all we meet, friend and not friend) Love is very catching, and love will change all who know love and use it, into the person which heaven will receive. God gave us two Commandments to follow: Love God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself. That and to follow Jesus, will take all who want to go to Heaven. I say this with love, Wolfe. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

I think it's the best post we have here to answer my question.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Well in his defense, he said. Yes, WE are sinners.

But I completely agree with you on the condescending tone, didn't get a lot of it from that post, but his other post were kinda that way.
We can't be "wrong" per se, when it comes to interpreting it, on cryptic, or hard to understand verses, but if you know something, or feel you know something that the other person doesn't. Don't call them wrong, simply present your argument. saying they're wrong only brings negativity(most of the time anyway)

Though on the topic of this I refer back to emmys' post

I think it's the best post we have here to answer my question.

Light made that statement about people taking scripture out of context to prove people are sinners....I was asking what that means..of course we are sinners.

 

[Light of the East]

Then we read about Noah getting drunk and being naked....I guess that is what the Lord was talking about? With all due respect it is your theology that is out of line. Also, there is no need for condescending tone.

"To prove that people are sinners". What does that mean? Are you without sin?

Thanks for proving my point. Instead of responding to the post I made, in which I even posted Scripture for you Bible-thumpin' sola scriptura types, you resort to taking a single man, pointing out his sin, and then trying to make a case that there is none righteous in the OT even after I posted verses which say that there are.

And you wonder why I refer to "theological gymnastics?"

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Thanks for proving my point. Instead of responding to the post I made, in which I even posted Scripture for you Bible-thumpin' sola scriptura types, you resort to taking a single man, pointing out his sin, and then trying to make a case that there is none righteous in the OT even after I posted verses which say that there are.

And you wonder why I refer to "theological gymnastics?"

What is the point, you already know everything anyhow right....