Could an atheist go to heaven?

[Uber Genius]

Just telling you what the Bible says. If you don't like it then take it up with God. It's His Word.

Nice try!

Postmodernism says, "Their is no authorial meaning in the text (enabling anyone to produce whatever meaning suits their desire)."

Exegesis, on the other hand, enables commentators to get at what the early audience would have understood.

If you had outlined the book, or even the chapter, you would have seen Paul making the case that both Jew or Gentile, law or no law, are all sinners and fall short. Further all, Jew or Gentile, come to good by way of faith not works.

He continues in chapter 3 with:

"
9 What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off?[b] No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,10 as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

"both Jews and Greeks, are under sin"

So Paul tells his Jewish audience "the Gentiles who keep the law by conscience are justified like Jews by the law.

"They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts," (referring to Gentiles)

But then says,

"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith."

So by lifting your passage out of context in which Paul framed it you have missed Paul's point.

He is telling the Jews the Gentiles come by faith and you also must come by faith. Why?

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

Outlining a book and sentence-diagraming to determine the precise structural meaning of the text in context is all you need to gain understanding of "God's words." Best of luck as exegetical practice unfolds what the original audience would have understood.

 

[Light of the East]

I understand baptism and I read Finney who said that in evangelism, if the Holy Spirit convicts and saves souls then a pattern similar to the gospels should be used. Finney connected repentance with faith and faith with a public declaration and baptism. Yet, who really is like the apostles to day in method or ministry?

Well, Finney was wrong. He had no idea what the pattern of the Gospels was because he didn't read the history of the Church as contained in the sermons of the Early Fathers.

As for your last question, the answer is the Eastern Christian Church, which is comprised of the Holy Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics.

 

[7trees]

Well, Finney was wrong. He had no idea what the pattern of the Gospels was because he didn't read the history of the Church as contained in the sermons of the Early Fathers.

As for your last question, the answer is the Eastern Christian Church, which is comprised of the Holy Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics.

You don't know what Finney read.

 

[Light of the East]

The NT witness is hearing, call to repentance, believing the message, Baptism.

No. That's just what was recorded in the Scriptures in one particular place. If you read the history of the Church, you find that there are instructions for baptizing infant children, who cannot believe.

The covenant of God is not restricted to those who can hear and understand. Our God is much more gracious than that. The scriptural evidence is that all in a family are welcome into the covenant family, both adult and infant. We see this in the fact that in the Old Covenant, infant males were circumcised and became members of the covenant nation. They did not have to wait until they could "make a decision for Jehovah."

You can quote all the Scripture you wish, but the evidence is that the Church baptized infants from the very beginning. The sermons of the first pastors show this, and the history of the Church shows this, since the idea of a "believer's baptism" did not show up for 1500 years after Christ and the Apostles walked the earth.

 

[Light of the East]

You don't know what Finney read.

Of course I do. He read a bunch of Calvinist claptrap designed to support Protestantism. If he had actually read the Early Fathers he would have repented and joined the Church.

 

[7trees]

Of course I do. He read a bunch of Calvinist claptrap designed to support Protestantism. If he had actually read the Early Fathers he would have repented and joined the Church.

The Calvinists hate Finney for being an Arminian. Again you do not know what he did or did not read. I know he did read some catholic saints for instance.

 

[redleghunter]

Your statement misses the whole point of what baptism is. Baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign and symbol by which we make covenant with God through Christ. In baptism we are united to Christ (Romans 6:3) and made an adopted child of God, entering into the covenant kingdom

Well said. Now to use some of the adopted Texas lingo.

You don't put a 'pickle seal' on an empty mason jar. The seal on a pickle jar must have pickles in it.

 

[redleghunter]

Yet, who really is like the apostles to day in method or ministry?

Indeed.

 

[redleghunter]

No. That's just what was recorded in the Scriptures in one particular place. If you read the history of the Church, you find that there are instructions for baptizing infant children, who cannot believe.

No, actually two places just in Acts of the Apostles. Acts 2 concludes: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."

I already posted Acts 10 which shows hearing the Gospel, believing, receiving the Holy Spirit and then being Baptized.

Infant baptism? You can make that claim from early church theologians. Perhaps tangentially via Acts 10 with 'you and your household.'

The covenant of God is not restricted to those who can hear and understand. Our God is much more gracious than that. The scriptural evidence is that all in a family are welcome into the covenant family, both adult and infant. We see this in the fact that in the Old Covenant, infant males were circumcised and became members of the covenant nation. They did not have to wait until they could "make a decision for Jehovah."

That is quite different. What happened to the circumcised sons of Jacob when God told Elijah that he set aside a remnant of 7,000 which did not bend the knee to Baal? What about the million or so or hundreds of thousands who were not part of this remnant? They were sealed as Israelites on the 8th day or so after birth.

The New Covenant is quite different in many aspects to the Old Covenant. One is a very physical covenant (the old covenant) with outward signs, sacrifices, observances. Promises of fertility, prosperous crops, cattle, and peace on every side from their enemies etc. Let's look at what the OT says about the New Covenant:

Jeremiah 31: NKJV

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (NKJV)


This also:


Ezekiel 36: NKJV

22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23 And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord,” says the Lord God, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land.

25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. (NKJV)

With the above we then have this from John chapter 3. Perhaps Jesus saying "are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?" meant that Nicodemus as a teacher should know the passages Jesus was referring to reference the new covenant.

John 3: NKJV

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”

10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

You can quote all the Scripture you wish, but the evidence is that the Church baptized infants from the very beginning. The sermons of the first pastors show this, and the history of the Church shows this, since the idea of a "believer's baptism" did not show up for 1500 years after Christ and the Apostles walked the earth.

If it happened in Acts and in the Gospels, then how is it only 1500 years old?

How can one condemn another person as a heretic or softly a heterodox if they follow the example of the most early Christians in the NT. A NT which tells us that knowledge of the OT is enough to make us wise unto salvation. The Gospel of John, where John says:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

The very least is if someone follows the NT example of Baptism, but not the ancient churches, we should at least say 'go in peace and may your walk with Christ be joyful and fulfilled.'

 

[Light of the East]

That is quite different. What happened to the circumcised sons of Jacob when God told Elijah that he set aside a remnant of 7,000 which did not bend the knee to Baal? What about the million or so or hundreds of thousands who were not part of this remnant? They were sealed as Israelites on the 8th day or so after birth.

I am not at all following the point you are trying to make here.

The New Covenant is quite different in many aspects to the Old Covenant. One is a very physical covenant (the old covenant) with outward signs, sacrifices, observances. Promises of fertility, prosperous crops, cattle, and peace on every side from their enemies etc. Let's look at what the OT says about the New Covenant:

It is different, but the principles are the same. Ray Sutton outlines the five working principles of a covenant in his book THAT YOU MAY PROSPER - Dominion by Covenant.

An analogy: a 2017 Ford car is vastly different from a 1925 Ford car but the principles are the same. That is, to be a car, it must have certain principles about it: engine, transmission, interior to carry passengers, wheels, etc.

The same is true of the Covenant of God. The New Covenant is a "better covenant speaking of better things" but it operates on the same five principles as the Old Covenant.

Now answer me this: if infant children were brought into the covenant by circumcision in the Old Covenant, how in the world is the New Covenant a "better covenant" if it excludes children until they are of some mythological "age of consent?" That is not a better covenant at all. It is a much worse one.

 

[redleghunter]

That is quite different. What happened to the circumcised sons of Jacob when God told Elijah that he set aside a remnant of 7,000 which did not bend the knee to Baal? What about the million or so or hundreds of thousands who were not part of this remnant? They were sealed as Israelites on the 8th day or so after birth.

I am not at all following the point you are trying to make here.

The New Covenant is quite different in many aspects to the Old Covenant. One is a very physical covenant (the old covenant) with outward signs, sacrifices, observances. Promises of fertility, prosperous crops, cattle, and peace on every side from their enemies etc. Let's look at what the OT says about the New Covenant:

It is different, but the principles are the same. Ray Sutton outlines the five working principles of a covenant in his book THAT YOU MAY PROSPER - Dominion by Covenant.

An analogy: a 2017 Ford car is vastly different from a 1925 Ford car but the principles are the same. That is, to be a car, it must have certain principles about it: engine, transmission, interior to carry passengers, wheels, etc.

The same is true of the Covenant of God. The New Covenant is a "better covenant speaking of better things" but it operates on the same five principles as the Old Covenant.

Now answer me this: if infant children were brought into the covenant by circumcision in the Old Covenant, how in the world is the New Covenant a "better covenant" if it excludes children until they are of some mythological "age of consent?" That is not a better covenant at all. It is a much worse one.

Was the above a response to my previous post?

 

[Light of the East]

Was the above a response to my previous post?

Yes.

Now answer the question, please. How is the New Covenant better than the Old Covenant if it excludes infant children?

 

[redleghunter]

Yes.

Now answer the question, please. How is the New Covenant better than the Old Covenant if it excludes infant children?

The New Covenant is sealed in the Holy Blood of Jesus Christ. That is why the New Covenant is better.

 

[Light of the East]

The New Covenant is sealed in the Holy Blood of Jesus Christ. That is why the New Covenant is better.

So the Old Covenant admits children to the covenant family and the new covenant excludes them. That doesn't sound better to me, especially if I am a father.

 

[redleghunter]

So the Old Covenant admits children to the covenant family and the new covenant excludes them. That doesn't sound better to me, especially if I am a father.

The Gospel of John quotes Jesus saying:

John 5:
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.(KJV)

We must remember God is sovereign in His Covenants. The New Covenant is no different as Jesus points out above.

Infant Baptism is confirmed by proxy. Meaning someone else confirms the intentions of the child. It is not until Confirmation a young adult says the words in understanding.

Now the above verses confirm God's sovereignty in salvation. It does not mean someone has to be of sound mind in order to be in righteous standing with Christ. The audience Jesus Christ is addressing in the passage are adults of sound mind. It means He is the judge and can quicken whom He wills. But we mortals cannot. It also means any doctrine, including "age of responsibility " is a doctrine of men and can be in error. We should trust God in His Mercy and Grace when it comes to those who cannot comprehend yet and in some cases never will be able to, His plan of Redemption.

We have faith in what we know. We as Christians know God is a Righteous Judge, patient and longsuffering wanting no one to perish.

God Bless