How can you believe in God?

[arunma]

And I believe that I've made a Biblical case (you know, the Bible you say I've denied?) that says that God does show mercy to those who, because of reasons beyond their control, have never heard the Gospel and cannot respond.

Yes, I know that you have said that the Bible supports the idea of invincible ignorance (or at least the evangelical version of this Catholic doctrine). However, I think that the difference of position here stems from a differing understanding of general and special revelation. You said this.

Scriptures such as Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20 clearly state that certain things about God can be understood from nature and the universe around us.

Now let's analyze Scripture to see the end goals of this sort of revelation. General revelation is the revelation given about God via nature, and special revelation is what God specifically gives through Scripture, prophets, dreams, visions, etc. Psalm 19:1-4 refers to the general revelation. As per the Reformed understanding of this type of revelation, general revelation only gives men enough knowledge to condemn us. The general revelation says nothing about Jesus and God's redemptive plan. This is what the Bible says,

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)
​

From the above text we see that general revelation is the revelation of God's wrath. It reveals his eternal power and divine nature, and leaves men without excuse. If all you know about God is that he is holy and just, then the only right conclusion is that he ought to condemn you for your sins. This doesn't give us anything that will impart salvation. In fact, the Scriptures go so far as to say that even the internal witness of the conscience only serves to convict and condemn,

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:12-16)
​

Those who die without the law will be judged by the law that is written on their hearts. And that law convicts them of sin, even though their conflicting thoughts sometimes cause them to excuse themselves. This is very important, because the text implies that even a man's good works will be called to convict him of sin, because they show that he was capable of doing good but still committed sin. Again, the general revelation says absolutely nothing about God's redemptive plan to save men by faith in Jesus Christ. As attractive as it is to believe that the person in the middle of Madagascar will be saved, the Bible doesn't say that he will be. God doesn't owe anyone salvation, and he is no less just if he condemns people who never heard about Jesus.

There is a means that he has ordained for proclaiming the special revelation of the Gospel: namely preaching and missions. This is what the Bible says about special revelation,

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Romans 10:14-17)
​

God has ordained a means for the person in Madagascar to be saved. And it isn't by having this person deduce the existence of the God of Israel from nature. It is that the church should send missionaries to reach him with the word. Does it concern you that a person is living in a remote part of the world without knowledge of the Gospel? This is a most godly concern, and the answer to it is to support missionaries so that they can preach the Gospel to him. Because that is the means by which he can be saved.

It's very important that we all understand all this, because the basis for man's condemnation is his sinful nature. It says,

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36)
​

It doesn't say that the wrath of God will come on him by virtue of his rejection of Christ, but that God's wrath remains. This implies that the wrath was there before Christ was preached to him. All people are sinful by nature, and we all deserve condemnation. If we believe this, then it doesn't make logical sense for us to say that the person in Madagascar will be saved simply because he never got a chance to hear the Gospel. Rejecting Christ is most certainly a heinous sin, but it is not the only sin by which God condemns sinners. All men have practiced a plethora of other sins that God can call against us on the day of judgment.

So what about Cornelius? The Bible says of him,

At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God. (Acts 10:1-2)
​

Adam Clarke's commentary on this passage is helpful.

Act 10:2
A devout man - Ευσεβης, from ευ, well, and σεβομαι, I worship. A person who worships the true God, and is no idolater.
One that feared God - Φοβουμενος τον Θεον, One who was acquainted with the true God, by means of his word and laws; who respected these laws, and would not dare to offend his Maker and his Judge. This is necessarily implied in the fear of God.
​

As a God-fearer, Cornelius was a man who worshiped the God of Israel, and who kept his commandments, rejecting the idolatry of the Gentiles. He would necessarily be familiar with the Torah, the history of God's dealings with Israel, the prophets, and all that God promised concerning the redemption of his people. What happened to Israel corporately during the ministry of Jesus also happened to him: he received the promises made to Abraham. Abraham was saved by his faith in the Messiah who was to come, though died without seeing the ultimate fruit of his faith. Likewise, Cornelius was likely saved by faith in the Messiah promised to Israel. As Epiphoskei has said, he was saved by special revelation of the type of Christ. And when the veil was removed and he learned that Jesus fulfilled all of these promises, he placed his faith in him in a more specific way. But the key here is that he had the special revelation of God. Cornelius was not saved by general revelation, because this can only condemn.

Again, it's very important that we not wrongly give unbelievers a way out of believing in Jesus. Ask yourself: why would a non-Christian care what happens to people in Madagascar (I'm obviously using this country as a euphemism for places where the Gospel has not been preached)? If they know enough about the Gospel to even ask this question, they obviously cannot be saved by their ignorance. The reason they are asking is because they want to convince themselves that there is a means of salvation other than giving up your false religion to become a Christ-follower, which usually involves publically identifying with Christ by water baptism and being a part of Christ's church. Many non-Christians don't want to give up their false religions because of cultural pressure to conform to some specific faith. And they figure that maybe they can pray to Christ in the context of their false faith and somehow be saved. This is not possible. Receiving Christ necessitates rejection of idolatry and repentance of sin. When people start thinking that God will save the ignorant unbeliever in Madagascar, they conclde that maybe he'll also save other people who don't publically identify with Christ. This isn't true, for it says,

And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God, but the one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God. (Luke 12:8-9)
​

You have to confess Christ to be saved. There is no other way. Again I don't mean to offend you, but these are matters of life and death. It's terribly important that we submit to Scripture and not lean on our own understanding. Now I know you believe that you've made a Biblical case to the contrary. But I ask that you would give my Biblical case against the doctrine of invincible ignorance a fair hearing, and make an unbiased judgment on the issue of what happens to people who never hear the Gospel.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Again I don't mean to offend you

Now, why would I possibly be offended at being told that I deny scripture?

Many non-Christians don't want to give up their false religions because of cultural pressure to conform to some specific faith.

But we're not talking about non-Christians who don't want to give up a false religion. We're talking about non-Christians who have only a small glimpse of the Gospel but are eagerly responding to it.

Now I know you believe that you've made a Biblical case to the contrary. But I ask that you would give my Biblical case against the doctrine of invincible ignorance a fair hearing, and make an unbiased judgment on the issue of what happens to people who never hear the Gospel.

OK. You're right. Everybody who lived before Christ is in Hell. Abraham, Elijah, David, all of the OT Jews, little babies who died before being able to confess Christ, they're all in Hell.

I'm not going to argue about it because you don't seem to be open to the scriptures I've provided, but based on the Bible, I have no choice but to believe that God is merciful and not capricious.

 

[arunma]

Now, why would I possibly be offended at being told that I deny scripture?

If I see something being said that contradicts Scripture, I can't afford to use sanitized language. I do, however, wish to be as charitable as I can without compromising the truth. I hope that you subscribe to the same policy.

But we're not talking about non-Christians who don't want to give up a false religion. We're talking about non-Christians who have only a small glimpse of the Gospel but are eagerly responding to it.

There are two important points here. First, we may be talking about non-Christians who have never heard the Gospel, but our entire discussion is for the sake of non-Christians who don't want to give up their false religion. Those are the people who come to this forum. A person who is wholly ignorant of the Gospel isn't going to be on Christian Forums. And if such a person comes to this forum, he will cease to be ignorant very quickly. It's important not to hold out false hope to these people. If you afford non-Christians even the smallest possibility of salvation apart from Christ (and let's face it, being saved without explicitly confessing Jesus is Lord is effectively salvation apart from Christ, whatever we choose to call it), then those non-Christians will cling to that small hope rather than confess Jesus. He is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and the natural man wants nothing to do with him.

Secondly, what small glimpse of the Gospel do ignorant non-Christians have? You said, "We're talking about non-Christians who have only a small glimpse of the Gospel." So I would like to ask which people these are? Are we still talking about the proverbial pigmy in Africa? Are we talking about people who were given a poor Gospel presentation? Remember: the Bible says that the general revelation doesn't say anything about Jesus. Your previous posts suggest that you are talking about general revelation. It isn't possible to get a small glimpse of the Gospel from the general revelation, as I have shown in my previous post. How can people respond to the Gospel when they have received no Gospel at all?

OK. You're right. Everybody who lived before Christ is in Hell. Abraham, Elijah, David, all of the OT Jews, little babies who died before being able to confess Christ, they're all in Hell.

John, these hot-headed outbursts of emotion aren't helpful. Life and death are at stake, and this is not the time to become emotional. I do not know if you wrote the above out of anger, but this is how it comes across in the written word. Two of the fruits of the spirit are gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:23), and this is a most important time to exercise both of those fruits. Please be careful with your words, because the Bible says that you can do murder with your tongue if you don't use it carefully.

But assuming that this isn't an emotional outburst, what you wrote above is an example of the Strawman fallacy. Here's a description of this logical fallacy:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
​

This is what you've done here. I do not know if you've given my position on this issue a fair hearing as I requested, but if the above text is your genuine perception of what I said, then I think you may not be understanding my earlier points and/or the Scriptures I cited in support of them, and this is an issue worth discussing further.

I'm not going to argue about it because you don't seem to be open to the scriptures I've provided, but based on the Bible, I have no choice but to believe that God is merciful and not capricious.

I have not said that God is capricious (here again you may be employing the straw man fallacy), and I am open to the Scriptures you provided. You'll notice that I referred to both of them in my previous post. I even quoted Romans 1:20 in context and deduced what I think is the correct authorial intent. The problem is that when I read the Scriptures in question, I am coming to a very different conclusion than you are. Do you believe that I am mistaken? If so, then please feel free to explain my error to me.

I would be very careful here, because you've jumped on to the same slippery slope as the universalists. "God is merciful" is the universalist's favorite reason as to why all non-Christians are going to heaven. The problem is a flawed understanding of mercy. Christians believe that God's mercy is revealed through the cross, and that he gives us mercy by our faith in Jesus Christ. Here God laid our sins on Christ, and imputed Christ's righteousness to us, thus satisfying both his just wrath and his love. Universalists, on the other hand, believe that God's mercy means that he sweeps sin under the rug and lets everyone into heaven, thus making useless the active obedience of Christ. I know that you are not a universalist. The problem is that you may be accepting certain presuppositions that, if taken to their logical conclusion, end up at universalism. This could be very dangerous. I know you don't want to discuss this issue further, but I think you owe it to yourself to address my interpretations of the Scriptures in question, and to ask yourself which one of us is interpreting them correctly (i.e. as per the author's original intent).

 

[JohnDeereFan]

If I see something being said that contradicts Scripture, I can't afford to use sanitized language. I do, however, wish to be as charitable as I can without compromising the truth.

Accusing me of denying scripture isn't a good way to do that. I could just as easily accuse you of doing the same, but I won't because it isn't a fair accusation, anymore than it's fair (or honest) of you to do it to me.

There are two important points here. First, we may be talking about non-Christians who have never heard the Gospel, but our entire discussion is for the sake of non-Christians who don't want to give up their false religion. Those are the people who come to this forum. A person who is wholly ignorant of the Gospel isn't going to be on Christian Forums. And if such a person comes to this forum, he will cease to be ignorant very quickly. It's important not to hold out false hope to these people. If you afford non-Christians even the smallest possibility of salvation apart from Christ (and let's face it, being saved without explicitly confessing Jesus is Lord is effectively salvation apart from Christ, whatever we choose to call it), then those non-Christians will cling to that small hope rather than confess Jesus. He is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and the natural man wants nothing to do with him.

The question was about people who have never heard the Gospel, not non-Christians who reject the Gospel.

Secondly, what small glimpse of the Gospel do ignorant non-Christians have?

The same as I've already described.

1. The knowledge of God
2. The knowledge of God's laws
3. The knowledge that we have broken God's laws

How can people respond to the Gospel when they have received no Gospel at all?

Do you or do you not believe that God has given those who have not received the Gospel the two witnesses of creation and the conscience?

John, these hot-headed outbursts of emotion aren't helpful. Life and death are at stake, and this is not the time to become emotional. I do not know if you wrote the above out of anger, but this is how it comes across in the written word. Two of the fruits of the spirit are gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:23), and this is a most important time to exercise both of those fruits. Please be careful with your words, because the Bible says that you can do murder with your tongue if you don't use it carefully.

It also says not to bear false witness.

But assuming that this isn't an emotional outburst, what you wrote above is an example of the Strawman fallacy. Here's a description of this logical fallacy:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.​

​

Yes, thank you for being condescending enough to think that I don't know what a strawman is.

However, you said that no one can be saved unless they specifically names the name of Christ. That would include all of the people I listed.

I would be very careful here, because you've jumped on to the same slippery slope as the universalists. "God is merciful" is the universalist's favorite reason as to why all non-Christians are going to heaven.

So, God does not show mercy?

 

[arunma]

John, your latest post has offered much clarification on some important points. I hope that this will help me to communicate more effectively.

Accusing me of denying scripture isn't a good way to do that. I could just as easily accuse you of doing the same, but I won't because it isn't a fair accusation, anymore than it's fair (or honest) of you to do it to me.

I see that you are particularly disturbed by my use of the phrase "denial of Scripture." Please allow me to explain that further. What I am saying is that affording unbelievers any possibility of salvation necessitates that we reject a part of Scriptural teaching. I am not saying that you are doing this maliciously. I am not even saying that I am not guilty of the same sin at times. On many occasions God reveals truths to me in the Bible that I formerly rejected because of some hidden bias or presupposition. I hope that if I am ever visibly guilty of this, someone will point out to me that my beliefs necessitates rejection of Scripture. I am not saying that you willfully reject God's teachings. What I am saying is that the worldview you hold is not in accordance with Scripture.

Again, I can clarify, but I cannot sanitize. To say that unbelievers have any chance of salvation (by ignorance or anything else) is not Biblical. And I think I know the presupposition that causes you to embrace this belief. Perhaps you believe that the only sin for which we are condemned is rejection of Christ. I am trying to show you that there are many other sins for which God would condemn us, and he is no less just if he condemns people who never heard of Jesus. God is not unjust to offer his mercy to some but not others. This is what the Bible says,

As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Romans 9:13-16)
​

The Bible disagrees with the Western American definition of justice and mercy. God is not unjust to elect some to salvation on the basis of his sovereign will and divine counsel, while condemning the reprobate to hell.

The question was about people who have never heard the Gospel, not non-Christians who reject the Gospel.

This is true, but it's important for you to understand my reasoning. When a person who rejects the Gospel reads what you've said on a Christian forum about ignorant unbelievers being saved, his heart will well up with hope that maybe he too can be saved. I've seen it happen on these forums. That's why it's important to speak only Biblical truth, and not to come up with our own ideas. And I think I've shown clearly that the Bible affords no possibility of salvation to unbelievers. Please see below for my response to your Biblical argument.

The same as I've already described.

1. The knowledge of God
2. The knowledge of God's laws
3. The knowledge that we have broken God's laws

This is your response to my question: What small glimpse of the Gospel do ignorant non-Christians have? Reread what you've written. Which of these three point can be called "Gospel?"

The Gospel is the good news that though we are sinners condemned to hell (Romans 1:32), God sent his Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for our sins (Matthew 20:28). In doing this, he took our sin upon himself (Galatians 3:13), imputed his righteousness to us (2 Corinthians 5:21), and cancelled our debt (Colossians 2:13-15), thus making us justified before God and reconciled to him (Romans 5:9). He was pierced for our transgressions so that we might be healed (1 Peter 2:24), and because of this we walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4) and will be raised to life on the last day (John 11:25). In short, the Gospel is about the grace of God(Acts 20:24).

Do you agree that this is the Gospel? It's very important that we agree here, because many modern heresies have arisen because of misunderstanding about the Gospel. Some people believe that the Gospel says nothing about repenting from sin and walking in newness of life. Others believe that the Gospel is all about living for God and has nothing to do with being justified from our sins. If we disagree on this most crucial point, then one of us must be wrong, and it's very important that we figure this out. If you disagree with me, then please tell me how you define the Gospel.

According to what I've written above (if you agree with it), the Gospel is about justification, reconciliation, salvation, and obeying Christ. It is not about the existence of God, his holiness, or his statutes. The only thing these bring is condemnation. Certainly it is good and right to know about the holiness and the just wrath of God. Indeed it is an absolutely essential foundation and prerequisite for the Gospel. But it is not the Gospel. None of the three points you mentioned above can be called Gospel. A man on an island who never heard about Jesus only knows that God exists, and that he is angry at sin. He doesn't actually possess anything that is capable of saving him from his sin. Repentance is essential for salvation, but,

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (Hebrews 9:22)
​

You can't be forgiven by repentance alone. You need a sacrifice to atone for your sins. And the only acceptable sacrifice to God is Christ Jesus his Son. The man on the island doesn't have this. That's why it's so important that he know about the God of Israel and his working in redemptive history.

Do you or do you not believe that God has given those who have not received the Gospel the two witnesses of creation and the conscience?

I fully believe this, and I have cited Scripture to this effect (Romans 1:20, 2:15). Again, neither creation nor the conscience has any power for salvation. The general revelation doesn't say anything about how to be forgiven your sins. This is the task of special revelation.

It also says not to bear false witness.

Let's say that you are right in your assumption that I am lying. Are you excusing one sin by pointing to another? This is very bad policy. In any case, I am not lying. Please note my explanation at the beginning of this post. I am not saying that you willfully or actively choose to deny Scripture. I am saying that a part of the worldview you are holding cannot be reconciled with Scripture.

Yes, thank you for being condescending enough to think that I don't know what a strawman is.

I am assuming that you would not willfully subscribe to the strawman fallacy, and thus did so unknowingly. I will explain below why your conclusion about my theological position is not correct.

However, you said that no one can be saved unless they specifically names the name of Christ. That would include all of the people I listed.

As I and another poster have explained, Old Testament Jews (and likely men such as Cornelius too) were saved by their faith in the types of Christ that God displayed via the worship of Israel. That was the point of the blood sacrifices. The Bible supports this typological view,

And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." (Galatians 3:8)
​

And,

Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad. (John 8:56)
​

Abraham named the name of Christ and was saved. He did not know that his name would be Jesus, that he would die by a Roman method of execution, or even the specific details about how God accomplished our redemption. But he trusted in Christ and was saved. He was given special revelation from God, apart from the witnesses of creation and conscience. People who bind themselves to God via his covenant are the ones who receive the special revelation and respond to it. This is why Old Testament Jews can be saved while the people on the island cannot (at least not unless the Gospel is preached there).

So, God does not show mercy?

It is not that God does not show mercy, but that universalism emphasizes God's mercy over his just wrath and his hatred of sin. That's what heresy is. It takes a Biblical truth about God and emphasizes it to the exclusion of other truths. For example, in modern times, the so-called emergent church movement emphasizes the condescension and humanity of Jesus over his exaltation and divinity. Likewise, some fundamentalist churches emphasize his exaltation over his condesension. Universalists rightly recognize that God is merciful, but they completely ignore his just wrath.

And here's the problem I see with the logic that you are employing. I believe that you may be emphasizing God's mercy over his just wrath. The unbeliever on the island hasn't placed his faith in God's promise of salvation through Christ. He can repent all he wants, but he has no sacrifice to atone for his sin and avert the wrath of God. So it is wrong to say that God will be merciful and forgive his sin. It is not that we here in the rest of the world are more deserving of God's mercy. But God has chosen to reveal Christ to us and provide him as the sacrifice for our sin. There's no mercy without the cross. Mercy and wrath meet at the cross, and nowhere else can wrath be avoided. When we say that God will be merciful to unbelievers who have never heard of Jesus, it is a very small logical step to say that God can also be merciful to people who have heard of Jesus and rejected him.

 

[JN4OldSchool]

Hello Gentlemen,

Interesting argument and one that will probably not be resolved. Meanwhile the OP is now probably completely disillusioned with Christianity.

JohnDeereFan, you did a commendable job with your initial response to the OP. As I was reading it I was thinking I could be writing this myself. As far as the salvation of people who have never heard the Gospel, I have to admit I have been burdened with this argument myself recently, and the salvation of children too young to make a rational decision for Christ might be a good indication of what would happen to people who have never had the chance to hear the Gospel. Then again, as mortal man we cannot begin to fathom God's righteousness and justice, we are flawed, not Him. It may very well be that these folks are damned to hell. There are many things we may find unpalatable but we do not have to like them. God is a God of love, but more importantly, He is a holy, just, and wrathful God. He has his reasons and we are not to second guess them. There are many things we will simply never know for sure and they should take the back seat to evangelizing the Gospel. I wish you gentlemen would have this argument in the theology forum and simply reply to the OP here that he raises a good point and that while we can argue this either way we simply do not know for sure.

One last thought, I have read more than once that the believer has to acknowledge Christ. The devil acknowledged Christ and trembles! Being born again is much more than merely acknowledging Christ. But as at least one of you is a preacher I am sure this is not news.

God bless both of you, you have both done some good thinking here.

For HIS glory!

 

[Insearchofenlightenment]

From reading this forum i wanted to make sure I understand correctly.

Senario: God creates a muslim child born in Afghanistan. He knew about this child before time existed because he is all knowing and he created everything. This child, being born in a muslim country, is raised by a very strict faith from day one. He lives in a country where his life his threatened if he does not practice islam. He does not know anything of christianity because he has no access to that information. His parents sensor all the information that he receives so that he will not be tempted to reject his faith.

The child grows up and lives a humble and quiet life. Meanwhile, God has known what is going to happen at every moment in this man's life. He is omnicient and had this child's life planned out before he was born. According to what has been said in this thread, the muslim man will go to hell when he dies. If thats true, then you can conclude that God sent this child to hell the second he created time.

This scenario agrees with the content of this thread which has been referenced from the bible. If God is merciful and just and an all loving God, then please explain what about this scenario has those characteristics. It seems very contradictory to me.

This is what I have concluded from the posts in this thread. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[JN4OldSchool]

From reading this forum i wanted to make sure I understand correctly.

Senario: God creates a muslim child born in Afghanistan. He knew about this child before time existed because he is all knowing and he created everything. This child, being born in a muslim country, is raised by a very strict faith from day one. He lives in a country where his life his threatened if he does not practice islam. He does not know anything of christianity because he has no access to that information. His parents sensor all the information that he receives so that he will not be tempted to reject his faith.

The child grows up and lives a humble and quiet life. Meanwhile, God has known what is going to happen at every moment in this man's life. He is omnicient and had this child's life planned out before he was born. According to what has been said in this thread, the muslim man will go to hell when he dies. If thats true, then you can conclude that God sent this child to hell the second he created time.

This scenario agrees with the content of this thread which has been referenced from the bible. If God is merciful and just and an all loving God, then please explain what about this scenario has those characteristics. It seems very contradictory to me.

This is what I have concluded from the posts in this thread. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Bottom line?

The muslim in question was a sinner just as you are a sinner and God ows him nothing but hell, just the same as you.

You can use this as an excuse to not believe or to hate God in your irrational, mortal mind. But remember this, if there is a God, and if He is the same as Jesus Christ, and if Christ has told us that the only way to the Father is through the Son, and if you have heard this message and rationally comprehend it, then you have a simple choice to make.

Believe first then face the theological questions such as this one. Let us suppose for a second that God is NOT a God of love, but rather a vengeful, wrathful, zealous God as the Jews supposed. Then what? Does this change anything for you? I bet that if the modern idea of God lined up with this instead of the fuzzy warm teddy bear in the sky that you want to believe, then I bet we would have a LOT more believers running around! Believe or be damned, that is what the Bible says.

edit: I want to add something because this is all very important. You are focused too much on who God is. You need to look to yourself. You are treating this like a party buffet, "should I choose the God or not...I don't know...It just doesn't look fresh..." WRONG! Jesus Christ is a lifeline! You are dead right now, you are doomed! You are floundering in the sea, the sharks are circling, you are freezing in the water, you are going down! God threw Jesus Christ at YOU! He is within your grasp. Do not look to the Muslim to your left, or the infant to your right. You have one chance, grab Christ! What do you care about the attributes of the one who threw the lifeline? Do you want to live or not? THAT is the question.

 

[Insearchofenlightenment]

So you are confirming that God never gives some people the chance to accept Christ therefore they are doomed to hell from the beginning? Am I correct to assume that from what you wrote?

By the way, I am not trying to decide whether or not I want to accept Christ or not. I have been a born again Christian for 20 years and I have recently been questioning my faith.

 

[JN4OldSchool]

So you are confirming that God never gives some people the chance to accept Christ therefore they are doomed to hell from the beginning? Am I correct to assume that from what you wrote?

Is that what I wrote? No, you may not assume that.

By the way, I am not trying to decide whether or not I want to accept Christ or not. I have been a born again Christian for 20 years and I have recently been questioning my faith.

Then read my previous post (post #26) again. I have the same question, how can a just God condemn someone who has never heard the Gospel? There is no answer for you, anything you get will be an opinion. Scripturally, the answer has to be yes, we are told this in John 3:18 and 36. The only way to the Father is through the Son. But who is to say that God does not have another way to reveal the Son to infants, the mentally unstable, and those who never got the chance to hear the Gospel? Is there Scriptural basis for this? (edit- I want to re-word that to distinct Scripture. David does say he will see his infant son in heaven, this is Scriptural basis) No, and I strongly caution you in believing this. At the end of the day it is not for us to question.

 

[Insearchofenlightenment]

Well the bible makes it very clear that the only way to heaven is through Christ. It also says the bible is perfect and that nothing should be added or removed. So from that you can conclude that a muslim man is doomed to hell from day one if he is never given the chance to know christ. If you say otherwise you are cleary contradicting what the word says.

The bible speaks of God as a fatherly figure. One that loves his children and takes care of them. ALL of his children. Why would a merciful, just God choose to let some of his children into heaven and some into hell especially when they never have the chance to know Christ? Just by creating a muslim child he is giving them slim to no chances to find Jesus. As a father, you would love all of your children equally and give them all equal chances and treatment wouldn't you? Why would it be different with God. He is our father is he not? The way you describe him is similar to how I would describe Hitler. He dooms everyone from the beginning unless they find Jesus but he doesnt give some the chance to find him.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I personally believe that when the time is right for God's wrath as talked about in the Book of the Revelation...everyone on this planet at some point would have had "the chance to hear about our Lord Jesus Christ". But that's just me.

He dooms everyone from the beginning unless they find Jesus but he doesnt give some the chance to find him.

This is not true, due to the fact that the white throne judgement of mankind has not happened yet. Read the book of revelation when you get a chance(again perhaps.). Use a good commentary along with that study...then you'll see what I am referring to here.

 

[JN4OldSchool]

Well the bible makes it very clear that the only way to heaven is through Christ. It also says the bible is perfect and that nothing should be added or removed. So from that you can conclude that a muslim man is doomed to hell from day one if he is never given the chance to know christ. If you say otherwise you are cleary contradicting what the word says.

Agreed. If you go by Scripture, which is all we have that is definite, though sometimes a bit hazy.

The bible speaks of God as a fatherly figure. One that loves his children and takes care of them. ALL of his children. Why would a merciful, just God choose to let some of his children into heaven and some into hell especially when they never have the chance to know Christ? Just by creating a muslim child he is giving them slim to no chances to find Jesus. As a father, you would love all of your children equally and give them all equal chances and treatment wouldn't you? Why would it be different with God. He is our father is he not? The way you describe him is similar to how I would describe Hitler. He dooms everyone from the beginning unless they find Jesus but he doesnt give some the chance to find him.

Hold up right there my brother! Quit trying to put words in my mouth! I describe Him as a holy, just, and loving God, perfect in all those attributes but above all holy. I do not judge Him for things that are beyond my understanding. I am just eternally grateful for that lifeline He chose to throw me, and I grabbed it. Lots of people think they have proved God evil, that is their short-sightedness. Man is evil, man deserves the lake of fire. In the end I believe EVERYONE ever born will have just as equal a chance at heaven as anyone else. How? I do not know. I just know the attributes of God. Maybe I am just fooling myself to ease my own conscience. Either way, I reiterate, we cannot know. Do not dwell on this, instead concentrate on bringing people to Christ so that they too may be saved!

 

[Epiphoskei]

Well the bible makes it very clear that the only way to heaven is through Christ. It also says the bible is perfect and that nothing should be added or removed. So from that you can conclude that a muslim man is doomed to hell from day one if he is never given the chance to know christ. If you say otherwise you are cleary contradicting what the word says.

The bible speaks of God as a fatherly figure. One that loves his children and takes care of them. ALL of his children. Why would a merciful, just God choose to let some of his children into heaven and some into hell especially when they never have the chance to know Christ? Just by creating a muslim child he is giving them slim to no chances to find Jesus. As a father, you would love all of your children equally and give them all equal chances and treatment wouldn't you? Why would it be different with God. He is our father is he not? The way you describe him is similar to how I would describe Hitler. He dooms everyone from the beginning unless they find Jesus but he doesnt give some the chance to find him.

You are confusing being condemned and being not saved. The end result may be the same, but you cannot say that people are condemned for not finding Christ. I gave you an example of a convicted prisoner and a govenor's pardon in another thread. A convict is not sent to prison because the govenor won't pardon him, a convict is sent to prison because he has committed a crime. If God is like Hitler for condemning the guilty then all law, government, and judges are like Hitler because they dare to enforce justice. Justice does not demand we all be given a chance, justice demands we all be put to death for our sins. Mercy saves us, and the king or govenor can show mercy wherever he wishes, and abstain from showing it wherever he wishes, without being unjust, because mercy is never deserved.

I believe what you are getting hung up on is the understanding of why God punishes. The church is mostly to blame for this misunderstanding, because largely all you hear in churches is that you have to believe to be saved, and that's the end of the story. There's no teaching about sin, the substitutionary atonement of Christ for our sins, and the forgiveness of those sins. All it boils down to in the minds of many of us is that God arbitrarily requires a bunch of innocent people to believe in Jesus or go to hell for no other reason than their unbelief, which is not biblical. Rather, humanity brought death upon itself when Adam sinned, and all of us will give our lives as a penalty for the evil we have done, but God stepped in and offered his son up on behalf of believers, to reconcile us who believe to the father. All those who have not been saved through this reconciliation necessarally are still dead in their own sins and will perish in them.

And about the fatherhood of God, it isn't universal. God is the adoptive father of his adoptive children, see Ephesians 1:5. This is the way he speaks of himself and his people throughout the Bible, but especially the Old Testament. He has adopted some into his family, the others are (in a manner of speaking) strangers whom he never knew (Matthew 7:23)

 

[JN4OldSchool]

I believe what you are getting hung up on is the understanding of why God punishes. The church is mostly to blame for this misunderstanding, because largely all you hear in churches is that you have to believe to be saved, and that's the end of the story. There's no teaching about sin, the substitutionary atonement of Christ for our sins, and the forgiveness of those sins. All it boils down to in the minds of many of us is that God arbitrarily requires a bunch of innocent people to believe in Jesus or go to hell for no other reason than their unbelief, which is not biblical. Rather, humanity brought death upon itself when Adam sinned, and all of us will give our lives as a penalty for the evil we have done, but God stepped in and offered his son up on behalf of believers, to reconcile us who believe to the father. All those who have not been saved through this reconciliation necessarally are still dead in their own sins and will perish in them.

Well said.

 

[arunma]

The bible speaks of God as a fatherly figure. One that loves his children and takes care of them. ALL of his children. Why would a merciful, just God choose to let some of his children into heaven and some into hell especially when they never have the chance to know Christ?

There's your problem. You assume that people are born as children of God by default. You don't get to be a son of God just by being born. Otherwise being "born again" would make no sense. It says,

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. (John 1:12)
​

You're right that God loves all of his children and saves us from our sins. But you don't get to be a child of God just by having a pulse. You receive the right to become a child of God through faith in Jesus Christ. If you aren't a Christian you aren't a son or daughter of God. If you aren't a Christian you are a child of Satan and will go to hell with him. This is why it's so important that you give up your agnosticism (or whatever religious belief you hold to) and join yourself to Christ, so that you can save yourself from this crooked and twisted generation.

 

[icamewithasword]

All,
This is one of the better threads I've seen thus far on this entire CF site. It makes me feel better about it (CF) to see other followers and those that love Jesus Christ.
I've been around to other threads on CF because they are intriguing in their titles, only to find that many/ most of them are bent on replacing scripture with science, or attempting to use science to prove that scripture is false. It's sad to see sooo many non-believers of the truth on a site titled "Christian Forums".
God Bless each of the respondants to the original poster. You may disagree with each other; but your faith in truth is great!
To Insearchof.... I pray that the Holy Spirit come upon you, that you may repent and come back home.

All glory to God, thru his Son Jesus Christ.

 

[ezravan]

IF Believers are all sinners still so they only hurt the message by letting others see them sin.

1 john 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
That goes for Christians too..

It has never been the message of Christianity that Christians are or can be Sinless. Anyone that says otherwise -- the truth is not in them.

The beauty is that the penalty of sin has been paid for those that believe. And that is the Good News, not that you can be sinless, But that HE is sinless and gives his purity to us as a gift from God, by nothing we can "do", or even "will."

Like gravity. You stand at a cliff understanding and knowing the truth of Gravity. Those that know, but do not believe, will step off to their doom.

 

[hookandladder]

Why does God care if we believe in him? Is he so insecure that he needs us to justify his position in the universe? At the time Jesus died, the average life expectancy was 25 years old, wasn't Jesus nearing the end of his life anyway? Weren't most of his disciples teenagers at the time? When was the last time you listened to a 19 year old and thought "this kid knows what he 's talking about?" If you put all the religious leaders at a table today and asked them which one of their God's is the true God, do you think it would be an unanimous answer? At some point, you have to ask yourself, why is so much energy being wasted on attempting to determine if we are saved or not saved, if we go to heaven or not? Don't pray for peace, act peacefully and you will see more results.

 

[icamewithasword]

Why does God care if we believe in him? Is he so insecure that he needs us to justify his position in the universe? At the time Jesus died, the average life expectancy was 25 years old, wasn't Jesus nearing the end of his life anyway? Weren't most of his disciples teenagers at the time? When was the last time you listened to a 19 year old and thought "this kid knows what he 's talking about?" If you put all the religious leaders at a table today and asked them which one of their God's is the true God, do you think it would be an unanimous answer? At some point, you have to ask yourself, why is so much energy being wasted on attempting to determine if we are saved or not saved, if we go to heaven or not? Don't pray for peace, act peacefully and you will see more results.

Legion,
I see you joined CF today and saw fit to make your first post one attempting to cast doubt on believers and lessening God. I don't know how old the deciples were, but as you were there I am sure you could name them and state their ages.
Enjoy your stay outside the kindom.