Do Non-Christians Go To Hell?

[ananda]

Adam must die he can not be reformed by our actions or beliefs....and he is in everyone of his children which includes you and me...and buddist....
This is why Jesus died that as we trust in what he has done Adams self is crucified in christ the new life is Gods life lived through us one with him....
As to the kingdom of God....the word kingdom does not descibe a place or location but the act of one ruling....the buddist is truing to empty false self to attain perfect self....that is not trusting God to reign in his body

I am not of the belief that Adam's nature is inherited by his children.

 

[rick357]

I am not of the belief that Adam's nature is inherited by his children.

He is the source of your DNA and much science has been done showing DNA affects behaviour.

 

[ananda]

He is the source of your DNA and much science has been done showing DNA affects behaviour.

And epigenetics (behavior or conscious intent) modifies DNA sequences. DNA is not fixed in stone.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

He was crucified to demonstrate to His disciples the ultimate gift of love:

"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Jn 15:12,13
​

His true disciples were expected to do the same, whether called upon to do so literally, or figuratively (to give in the name of love, if necessary).

The crucifixion was not meant to be an atoning sacrifice through blood ... According to Law, if animals could not be offered, fine flour could be offered (Lev 5:11); therefore blood was not absolutely needed for the remission of sins, as Paul would like to require.

In fact, the cup that he drank from during Passover was what Jesus specifically identified as the blood shed for the remission of sins (Mt 26:28), not His crucifixion. The cup (ποτήριο&#957, represents "one's lot in life, whether good or bad". When Jesus drank the cup, and commanded that His disciples share in it, it symbolized that the true disciples would share in Jesus' lot in life ... His walk, His sufferings and, soon, His blessings. This was the true blood (blood being life) shed that produced remission of sins ... to walk in righteousness with Him. In summary, the blood & life we shed for Him through participating in His walk, trials, temptations, sufferings is for the remission of our sins, and we will inherit the same blessings He inherits, such as eternal life.

How in the world does Jesus' death demonstrate love if it doesn't actually accomplish something?

 

[ananda]

How in the world does Jesus' death demonstrate love if it doesn't actually accomplish something?

By His death on the cross, He clearly pointed out and paved the Way to the Father ... the Way being loving Him and His Father and our brerthen so much that we are willing to do abandon our earthly selves to embrace that supernatural love.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

By His death on the cross, He clearly pointed out and paved the Way to the Father ... the Way being loving Him and His Father and our brerthen so much that we are willing to do abandon our earthly selves to embrace that supernatural love.

OK, so Jesus' death points out that earthly existence isn't the height of human existence. I can buy that much.

But it still doesn't actually teach us how to love God and others. The career of Mother Teresa seems to exemplify self-giving love because she actually accomplished something over the course of a long life. If Jesus' death merely was a teaching tool, it wasn't the most effective one, and if it didn't actually do anything, I can't see how it is an act of love any more significant that working at a soup kitchen.

 

[Time4Truth]

The question in the OP should be this.

Do "all" non Christians go to hell.

I believe the answer is no, they do not.


Before the millennial reign, in which the first resurrection takes place, effectively collecting the true Christians, all of the Christians both sleeping and alive will be with the Lord.

However, there is another resurrection of the dead. After the 1000 years..

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

What is interesting is that the "sea" is not mentioned as being thrown into the lake of fire.


I believe the sea represents those found favorable in the sight of God without every having heard the Gospel, but believing in a creator and the laws written on their hearts.

 

[ananda]

OK, so Jesus' death points out that earthly existence isn't the height of human existence. I can buy that much.

But it still doesn't actually teach us how to love God and others. The career of Mother Teresa seems to exemplify self-giving love because she actually accomplished something over the course of a long life. If Jesus' death merely was a teaching tool, it wasn't the most effective one, and if it didn't actually do anything, I can't see how it is an act of love any more significant that working at a soup kitchen.

I thought that His death was immensely effective - He personally demonstrated the ultimate sacrifice we must each be willing to undertake in our own lives.

By walking in the light, fellowshiping with one another, yoking ourselves with Him, doing His deeds, and taking up our own crosses daily, each of us partakes of His blood and cup; and in that way, our sacrifices in His Name cleanses us from our sins.

 

[Jig]

Is it still your personal belief, as you have expressed in previous threads, that even an infant aborted from the womb is hellbound because it has not confessed the name of Jesus?

Trust me, I don't want aborted or miscarried fetuses to go to the Lake of Fire. The very thought saddens me greatly. If this is true, I will have at least one child already going to hell. However, the Bible is clear that there is only ONE way to be saved from your sins and this sinful world.

To say that those who have never had the opportunity to accept the free gift of salvation offered by Jesus are saved "in another way" is to created an exception to the Gospel message.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Trust me, I don't want aborted or miscarried fetuses to go to the Lake of Fire. The very thought saddens me greatly. If this is true, I will have at least one child already going to hell. However, the Bible is clear that there is only ONE way to be saved from your sins and this sinful world.

To say that those who have never had the opportunity to accept the free gift of salvation offered by Jesus are saved "in another way" is to created an exception to the Gospel message.

I don't think anyone denies that it is through Jesus Christ and His atonement on the Cross that we are saved.

The problem is that to limit that process to only persons who have heard the Gospel in life and reached whatever level of assent is needed according to one's theology - effectively limits God.

God cannot save infants? God cannot save the mentally disabled? God cannot save those who never heard the Gospel? God cannot save the aborted? God cannot save small children who die?

I do not presume to say what God will or will not do, or how He will accomplish it. I do acknowledge that there is ONE NAME under heaven by which men may be saved. But God is the judge, and whatever processes or plans He may have are at His discretion, not mine.

I do not say that God WILL save every one of those classes of people I mention. But I most certainly will not say that He cannot. I simply leave it in His hands.

I will not limit God by saying that it is only by the process I personally understand that He may save people. That is the point of disagreement. I hope that makes sense.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I thought that His death was immensely effective - He personally demonstrated the ultimate sacrifice we must each be willing to undertake in our own lives.

By walking in the light, fellowshiping with one another, yoking ourselves with Him, doing His deeds, and taking up our own crosses daily, each of us partakes of His blood and cup; and in that way, our sacrifices in His Name cleanses us from our sins.

So we should all end our lives in crucifixion?

 

[ananda]

So we should all end our lives in crucifixion?

No, but if we are forced into that situation, we should theoretically be able to do so.

 

[Jig]

I don't think anyone denies that it is through Jesus Christ and His atonement on the Cross that we are saved.

The problem is that to limit that process to only persons who have heard the Gospel in life and reached whatever level of assent is needed according to one's theology - effectively limits God.

God cannot save infants? God cannot save the mentally disabled? God cannot save those who never heard the Gospel? God cannot save the aborted? God cannot save small children who die?

There are several things God cannot do. He is limited by what is possible. God cannot do the impossible - like create a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it.

God devised a rescue plan and explained it to us through the writings of several men. These inspired writings tell us that one doesn't just become born again by doing nothing. There is a process that we are active agents in. What you are suggesting creates a whole host of theological problems.

I do not presume to say what God will or will not do, or how He will accomplish it. I do acknowledge that there is ONE NAME under heaven by which men may be saved. But God is the judge, and whatever processes or plans He may have are at His discretion, not mine.

Do you really believe that you are not presuming anything? You are saying that you know that God "can" save those who have never heard (or responded to) the Gospel while they were alive. How do you know this without presuming to know what is possible for God to do?

 

[Strong in Him]

Trust me, I don't want aborted or miscarried fetuses to go to the Lake of Fire. The very thought saddens me greatly. If this is true, I will have at least one child already going to hell.

I don't believe it is true.

However, the Bible is clear that there is only ONE way to be saved from your sins and this sinful world]

An aborted foetus has been sinned against. They have not committed any sin.

To say that those who have never had the opportunity to accept the free gift of salvation offered by Jesus are saved "in another way" is to created an exception to the Gospel message.

If someone has not been allowed to live, through no fault or will of their own, has not committed any sins, has not had a chance to hear the Gospel or realise, and confess, that they need a Saviour, and has not been able to acknowledge Jesus as that Saviour and Lord - how is it just and fair to send them to the same place as those who HAVE heard the Gospel, chosen to deliberately ignore it, and have rejected and hated God?
God gives life, (Gen 1:26-7, 2:7; Psalm 139). Some babies have their lives cut short - again, not through their fault or will. Would God, who is a perfect, loving heavenly Father tell those babies that even though they had been denied a chance to know him, their Creator, they must nevertheless spend all eternity without him - as a punishment for something over which they had no control? I don't believe he would. My own, imperfect, father would not have acted in that way, so I can't believe that my perfect heavenly Father who IS love, would do so either.

 

[Gary51]

It's a sick understanding of God's will and plan that believe such things, as sending the faultless to a hell of endless torture.

Those that believe in the hell of endless torture follow Satan's lies. They are deceived!

 

[~Anastasia~]

There are several things God cannot do. He is limited by what is possible. God cannot do the impossible - like create a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it.

God devised a rescue plan and explained it to us through the writings of several men. These inspired writings tell us that one doesn't just become born again by doing nothing. There is a process that we are active agents in. What you are suggesting creates a whole host of theological problems.

Do you really believe that you are not presuming anything? You are saying that you know that God "can" save those who have never heard (or responded to) the Gospel while they were alive. How do you know this without presuming to know what is possible for God to do?

I don't see this as akin to the rather ridiculous question of whether God can or not make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it.

Yes, God devised a plan. He has made us aware of how we might be saved. As I said earlier in this thread, one takes serious risk in scorning that means of salvation.

But it seems you propose limiting God to a single means. Our understanding is finite. We are given to know what we are given to know, but we are told no more.

If we limit God to our own understanding - we limit God.

I think there is more danger of error in presuming that our understanding is the totality of God's ability, compared to my suggestion that God has abilities other than what we are aware of.

I suppose you and I both presume - But I believe it is more correct to presume that God is able to do more than I can know or imagine, than it is to presume that God is limited by what I know or imagine.

Perhaps we shall need to agree to disagree, because this is my stance on the subject.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

No, but if we are forced into that situation, we should theoretically be able to do so.

Sure. But martyrdom is hardly the only significance attached to Jesus' death in the New Testament (even excluding Paul).

In any case, I still don't understand how his death actually demonstrates self-sacrifice on behalf of others if it isn't actually on behalf of anyone.

 

[ananda]

Sure. But martyrdom is hardly the only significance attached to Jesus' death in the New Testament (even excluding Paul).

In any case, I still don't understand how his death actually demonstrates self-sacrifice on behalf of others if it isn't actually on behalf of anyone.

I don't consider my moral walk in vain if it influences my children and others to walk morally as well.

 

[Jig]

I don't see this as akin to the rather ridiculous question of whether God can or not make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it.

Don't miss my point though...there are things God cannot do. This doesn't make God any less omnipotent, powerful, or loving.

Yes, God devised a plan. He has made us aware of how we might be saved. As I said earlier in this thread, one takes serious risk in scorning that means of salvation.

Have you ever wondered why God devised this specific plan for salvation? I trust that God knew that this was the best plan out of any other possible plans. Perhaps God knew that this was the ONLY plan that could work.

You seem to believe that your position errs on the side of caution. But all we can know is what God has revealed to us. I think to err of the side of caution would be to not add to what has been revealed.

But it seems you propose limiting God to a single means. Our understanding is finite. We are given to know what we are given to know, but we are told no more.

If we limit God to our own understanding - we limit God.

How am I limiting God? If God's plan for salvation has limitations, that isn't my fault. That's God doing - and perhaps those limitations are necessary. Can you say that they are not? Only God knows. And all we know is what God has revealed to us.

I think there is more danger of error in presuming that our understanding is the totality of God's ability, compared to my suggestion that God has abilities other than what we are aware of.

And I think there is more danger of error in creating exceptions to what has been revealed.

I suppose you and I both presume - But I believe it is more correct to presume that God is able to do more than I can know or imagine, than it is to presume that God is limited by what I know or imagine.

My position does not limit God. My position merely states that I can only know what has been explicitly revealed. I'm not going to add to God's Word just because it makes me feel better.

 

[Jig]

It's a sick understanding of God's will and plan that believe such things, as sending the faultless to a hell of endless torture.

Those that believe in the hell of endless torture follow Satan's lies. They are deceived!

I understand that there are multiple positions when it comes to sin. It is my belief that no one is perfectly holy - only Jesus Christ. This would necessarily include infants, children, the mentally handicapped, native Americans that lived before Columbus, etc.

As such, I believe everyone (without exception) needs to be saved. You can believe that this is a "sick understanding" of God's will and plan, but it is my position nonetheless.