Salvation before Jesus

Ancient of Days

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2017
1,136
860
Mn.
✟138,689.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Not sure if you are talking to me or the OP?????? I quoted the OP, then addressed his question but you have jumbled it all up together....
The book of Romans and Hebrews do not contradict each other. They are written by the same author.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Not sure if you are talking to me or the OP?????? I quoted the OP, then addressed his question but you have jumbled it all up together....
The book of Romans and Hebrews do not contradict each other. They are written by the same author.
Apologies. I'm used to quotes from other postings being done in the usual way. At this point I'm not sure what point you are actually making. I don't believe Hebrews and Paul contract each other.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Site Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,568
394
Canada
✟238,144.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is no logic to applying an atonement before it takes place. The comparison to Yom Kippur and a sacrificial Passover lamb do not apply because their effect under the law did not apply in advance either. So if from the time of Adam people got salvation directly from God, then it can always work the same way with the eternal God. And Christian scriptures don't explain the alternative.

NT Bible is for those believed to be saved. NT Bible has also the purpose of filtering those refused to believe. These are the two main purpose of the Bible. Jesus ever said, those who believe will be given the abundance while those disbelieve even the last bit will be removed from them. The purpose of the Bible inline with what He said.

That being said. The OT is more like a preparation for Christ first coming. The preparation was done through the Jews. Such that it can be witnessed that how a flawless lamb being slain as an atonement of sin. This is rather an original Jewish concept. Such a concept was deliberately built via the Jews as a preparation of Christ's arrival. To put it another way, if God did't build the concept through the Jews. Jesus came then jumped off a cliff, or hanged Himself then died, if so how can humans know that the Son of God has been sacrificed?

Do you use credit card? Jesus blood doesn't need to take effect only after His death. It's rather the effect of His blood only explained (instead of effective) after His death. His blood shed takes effect long before He visited earth the first time, though this effect was only explained after His first visit. While the explanation is more focused on the salvation of humans today.

Do you study laws? Do you know how long it takes for a novice to study laws to become a professional lawyer? God doesn't demand humans to understand His Law and covenants in full details simply because it's never a requirement for humans to be saved. They only need to believe in Jesus Christ, for Christ sake!

Do you need to study laws in details in order to abide by laws? You can be a good citizen without studying the law details. You may need to watch daily news to get an update on here and there though.

That being said, I can highlight you the big picture here;

God has a full set of Law which is applicable to both humans and angels. Genesis is about how Satan the angel and Adam the man broke this set of Law. This set of Law is required to quality both angels and humans to enter the future Heaven (an eternity).

Adam was driven out of Eden (lied inside God's realm). Since then humans are living on earth (lying outside God's realm).

From Adam till Noah, it's a period standing witness that humans can no longer abide by this set of Law (which is applicable to both humans and angels). It is thus time to put an end to humans as God's purpose of bringing humans to Heaven is defeated. That's why the flood.

However God has Jesus Christ. By the effect of His blood, a counter reset can thus be called for. God can thus grant covenants to humans for them to be saved through Jesus Christ.

Covenants are the use of Christ Blood as God's Grace, such that humans can be saved alternatively. Covenants are only applicable to humans but not angels as the blood of Jesus is only for humans but not angels.

However as time goes by, humans are expected to go further and further away from God to an extent that they can't even stick to the covenant granted. To put it another way, the main purpose of a covenant is to distinguish the righteous (or saved) from the wicked (unsaved). If this purpose is defeated, it simply means a new covenant is needed. This is how it works even before Jesus' first coming.

Covenant thus has a time period for its this purpose to be served. It also has a scope of human coverage. Obviously, the Mosaic covenant is for the Jews (and converts) while Noah's covenant is supposed to be applicable to all mankind. It is also possible that today's humans (as gentiles) are under the coverage of this Noah covenant. Regardless, covenants also have the accumulative effect.

A covenant in effect only changes the way how one is judged. That's why even Christians need to deal with their own sins. It means they need to abide by whatever laws specified by a previous covenant though they are expected to failed here and there. The New Covenant on the other hand will protect them from being judged (on the Judgment Day) using those older laws. They will be exempted from such a judgment.

To view from another perspective, Grace of a covenant is not earned by humans. It is earned by Jesus' self-sacrifice. It is thus more like a gift. The one who earned it has the ultimate right to grant it to whoever He wishes to. It means that don't complain if the gift is not around you. All humans on earth are at least covered by the oldest one brought by Noah.

Preaching of the gospel (New Covenant) is an human effort. It is because humans have the right either to accept it or to reject it. It means God won't force it upon you if you choose to reject it. To put it another way, if it's not because at some point humans chose to reject it, it should have reached every corners of our world.

If you read the book of Revelation, you may notice that the final judgment is two-layered, namely, a judgment of covenant and a judgment of Law. In the judgment of covenant, when Jesus says that you passed then you enter Heaven, or else you are condemned. It is so because covenants are signed by His blood.

If you are disqualified by the covenant you are subject to (Jesus will be the Judge), then you are put to death under the judgment of Law (the set applicable to both humans and angels). It can be as simple as pointing out one of your sins, then you are done. It is expected that not a single human can pass this judgment of Law.

All left is what covers the scope of humans from Adam to Noah, as there seems not to be a valid covenant there. The Bible hinted that somehow they are covered by the New Covenant which is the same one covering today's Christians. The Bible however didn't put many details on how it is so though.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Duvduv

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2018
593
83
68
New York State
✟38,390.00
Country
United States
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
How do denominations determine whether Christians of other denominations are actually eternally saved, and how does this affect ecumenism? I assume denominations who recognize each other's communion consider them equally saved despite differences in theology, although one assumes such denominations to be liberal that tgry don't care about differences, and that anyone who simply says they believe in Jesus is saved.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
How do denominations determine whether Christians of other denominations are actually eternally saved, and how does this affect ecumenism? I assume denominations who recognize each other's communion consider them equally saved despite differences in theology, although one assumes such denominations to be liberal that tgry don't care about differences, and that anyone who simply says they believe in Jesus is saved.
Most of us don't. Very few Christian groups claim to be able to tell who is saved and who isn't. The most we could do is determine whether what another denomination teaches has errors that might tend to undermine their effectiveness in inspiring saving faith. You'll see lots of condemnations of doctrine and practice of various denominations, but you shouldn't read that as saying that all members of those denominations are damned.

At one point the Catholic Church seems to have said that you couldn't be saved outside the Church, but that was centuries ago, and the modern Catholic interpretation of that saying allows for the salvation even of atheists, not just those in other denominations.

I'm sure there are some small groups that maintain that everyone else is damned, but such a position isn't common.
 
Upvote 0

Duvduv

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2018
593
83
68
New York State
✟38,390.00
Country
United States
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
That sounds somewhat ambiguous since if a church is teaching wrongly then its followers aren't saved.
And I believe the Catholic Church maintains that salvation is only with them.
The Billy Graham approach seems to imply utsi enough to accept Jesus, and the rest is unimportant.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
That sounds somewhat ambiguous since if a church is teaching wrongly then its followers aren't saved.
And I believe the Catholic Church maintains that salvation is only with them.
No, even conservatives aren’t that rigid.

No, the last two popes have been pretty clear that it’s possible for others. There was a recent video where a boy asked the Pope whether his atheist father was saved and the Pope said he was.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I don't know what public statements mean in comparison to official Vatican doctrinal statements, especially when this Pope is knoen for rather controversial off the cuff statements.
Here's an explanation from the fairly conservative "Catholic Answers": Can Non-Christians Be Saved? | Catholic Answers

Here's a summary from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: The Roman Catholic Church on Non-Christians and Salvation

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."


Read more at The Roman Catholic Church on Non-Christians and Salvation
 
Upvote 0

Duvduv

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2018
593
83
68
New York State
✟38,390.00
Country
United States
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
It seems to me after reading the material that the position contradicts itself and can bring no proof from any Christian scriptures or ancient councils, and gives the impression of inventing the solution when faced with the obvious dilemma that was never resolved in ancient times when the vast majority of humanity knew nothing about salvation through Jesus. But if its implied that salvation without Jesus is freely available to anyone, then what's the importance of the doctrine of salvation through Jesus?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
It seems to me after reading the material that the position contradicts itself and can bring no proof from any Christian scriptures or ancient councils, and gives the impression of inventing the solution when faced with the obvious dilemma that was never resolved in ancient times when the vast majority of humanity knew nothing about salvation through Jesus. But if its implied that salvation without Jesus is freely available to anyone, then what's the importance of the doctrine of salvation through Jesus?
The reason for the appearance of contradiction is that the Catholic Church can't change doctrines. So instead they reinterpret them. But this reinterpretation has been around for quite a while.

One of the best-known advocates is Karl Rahner. Here's a summary from Wikipedia. Please note that I'm not advocating this particular formulation, though I agree that it's possible for non-Christians to be saved.

------------------

Karl Rahner accepted the notion that without Christ it was impossible to achieve salvation, but he could not accept the notion that people who have never heard of Jesus would be condemned.[4]

"Anonymous Christianity" means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity. A Protestant Christian is, of course, "no anonymous Christian"; that is perfectly clear. But, let us say, a Buddhist monk (or anyone else I might suppose) who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity.[5]​

According to Rahner, a person could "intellectually profess disbelief but [be] existentially ... committed to those values which for the Christian are concretized in God."[6]

Anonymous Christian - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

Duvduv

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2018
593
83
68
New York State
✟38,390.00
Country
United States
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Then the world has no need for the whole business, and can get along just fine without it. Rahner also cannot provide original inspired sources .for this theory either. Even Calvinists have no need for evangelism. Everything is fine without it.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ideas like that are fairly common among Protestants as well. Officially, conservative Protestant churches reject it, but many of their members accept it, particularly for people that haven't heard the Gospel at all. Several major Protestant figures accepted it, e.g. Wesley and Arminius. Possibly Luther as well.

It's a difficult issue, because Christians generally agree that Christ is necessary for salvation. However if you think he had to pay for our sins (not the only model of atonement, I might note) he didn't necessarily need our consent or even knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Then the world has no need for the whole business, and can get along just fine without it. Rahner also cannot provide original inspired sources .for this theory either. Even Calvinists have no need for evangelism. Everything is fine without it.
This is a discussion I have with Christian as well. Jesus said his purpose was to establish the Kingdom of God. My understanding is that he was calling followers to join him in this.

I believe humans are estranged from God, that Christ came to reconcile us, and that his followers are called to join him in that mission. But I don’t think this implies that everyone else is rejected. Indeed in some sense that contradicts Jesus’ mission to reconcile the world.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums