What about those who never hear the Good News?

[Skala]

I'm not trying to wriggle out of answer the question. I assert that the question is invalid, since it proceeds from a materialist conception of God, a conception which I reject.

As to the Scriptures speaking of foreknowledge, "before the world began", and the like, so what? These are words that must be interpreted, and will be interpreted in keeping with one's philosophical prejudices. I have already shared how I interpret them.

And I, and most of Christendom, reject your interpretation.

 

[Skala]

I may not understand what "everlasting dissolution" or "open theism" are. I only look at the OP question and answer in my simple way as a very new Christian.

So the question was "what about people who never hear about Jesus? Do they simply go to hell for their ignorance?" I am curious about this as well as what about those who do not know God exists? Let's consider the Old Testament. They did not know about Salvation or Jesus Christ. Those of the Old Testament days were not saved through faith. Were they saved by following the Law?

(Romans 1:20 (NKJV) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, .

Those such as Moses, Noah and Abraham for example, God spoke with. They knew He existed. They chose to believe and to follow the commandments, the Law.

Could it not be possible that there were those who did not know God existed, even then? This is where I am confused by Romans 1:20. Is this verse telling us that ALL knew, regardless if God spoke to them or not?

As for those who do not know Jesus, or have not heard the Good News...

Romans 10:14-15
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!”


Romans 15:21 but as it is written:
“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.

Paul is telling us that for even those who do not know, if they are to be made to understand then, having that knowledge, gives them their choice to accept or reject Salvation.

I am still uncertain on my interpretations here. Sounds like a study of this, for me, is in order.

Peace.

It seems simple.

They are sinners regardless whether or not they know God exists. Sin must be punished.

 

[rogueapologist]

It seems simple.

They are sinners regardless whether or not they know God exists. Sin must be punished.

Why must sin be punished? You have still not answered this?

 

[rogueapologist]

Irrelevant. I'm telling you (instead of reporting it) that if you continue with those types of posts, they will be actioned. You don't have to like it. In fact, you can take it up with the higher ups. But that's the way it is.

What is irrelevant? You are accusing me of advocating Open Theism, and when I deny it, you don't even bother to show me how I am doing what you say I'm doing, nor provide any insight into what criteria my post would fulfill in violation of this rule. Rather, you are making a Draconian ruling about the nature of my post for no other reason (based on the reasons you've given...or not given) than the fact that you disagree with it.

 

[Hammster]

What is irrelevant? You are accusing me of advocating Open Theism, and when I deny it, you don't even bother to show me how I am doing what you say I'm doing, nor provide any insight into what criteria my post would fulfill in violation of this rule. Rather, you are making a Draconian ruling about the nature of my post for no other reason (based on the reasons you've given...or not given) than the fact that you disagree with it.

Okay, I'll give you a chance to explain your views. It's quite possible I've overreacted.

Does God know future events? Does He know how many people will be created and which ones will be saved?

 

[Hammster]

It's the natural result of severing oneself from the life of God. While I am no annihilationist, I do believe that the life of the one who chooses self-will over reconciliation with the divine will persist forever in a movement away from life with God, away from existence itself.

(Trying again)

But there is no hell, correct?

 

[rogueapologist]

Okay, I'll give you a chance to explain your views. It's quite possible I've overreacted.

I already explained my view, and I'm not interested in answering your bait questions.

What I meant is contained within what I posted earlier, and is clearly not related to Open Theism whatsoever. Feel free to read it again. If you have some meaningful correlation to make between what I said and "Open Theism", be my guest. I will be happy to respond and show you where you are in error.

 

[Hammster]

I already explained my view, and I'm not interested in answering your bait questions.

What I meant is contained within what I posted earlier, and is clearly not related to Open Theism whatsoever. Feel free to read it again. If you have some meaningful correlation to make between what I said and "Open Theism", be my guest. I will be happy to respond and show you where you are in error.

Suit yourself. My questions were asked to determine whether there was a meaningful correlation between what you said and what was understood to be Open Theism. They weren't random or bait. The fact that you think they are bait could be telling, though. However, if you don't wish to clarify, then so be it.

 

[rogueapologist]

Suit yourself. My questions were asked to determine whether there was a meaningful correlation between what you said and what was understood to be Open Theism. They weren't random or bait. The fact that you think they are bait could be telling, though. However, if you don't wish to clarify, then so be it.

There is no dodge, if that's what you're insinuating. I'm not answering your questions because there is no need to. A simple review of what I previously posted should be sufficient to clear any doubt that you created.

If you need clarification, I suggest you get in touch with someone who is able to understand the difference between what I posted and what you assume is Open Theism.

And finally, you still have yet to tell me why you think what I said is "Open Theism". Perhaps that is telling as well...hmmm....

 

[rogueapologist]

(Trying again)

But there is no hell, correct?

Read what I said. All of the answers are there, and I really shouldn't have to repeat myself.

I fully described what I believe to be the fate of the person severed from the life of God. You can label that existence whatever you like.

 

[Hammster]

There is no dodge, if that's what you're insinuating. I'm not answering your questions because there is no need to. A simple review of what I previously posted should be sufficient to clear any doubt that you created.

If you need clarification, I suggest you get in touch with someone who is able to understand the difference between what I posted and what you assume is Open Theism.

And finally, you still have yet to tell me why you think what I said is "Open Theism". Perhaps that is telling as well...hmmm....

So we should take all of your statements at face value without asking for clarification, or cross examination? That's not how it usually goes around here.

 

[Hammster]

Read what I said. All of the answers are there, and I really shouldn't have to repeat myself.

I fully described what I believe to be the fate of the person severed from the life of God. You can label that existence whatever you like.

Where do you see your view described in Scripture?

 

[rogueapologist]

So we should take all of your statements at face value without asking for clarification, or cross examination? That's not how it usually goes around here.

You already did by labeling my viewpoint and tacitly threatening action. When I asked you to tell me how my view corresponds to your accusation, you ignored it and started asking baited questions.

If you want clarification, how about starting with answering my question first? How is my view infringing in the forum rules? Obviously you think it does, so lets hear your rationale. No more quips or one liners, and more deflection questions. Lets see some serious explanation from you of why you made the accusation and what the basis for this accusation is in relation to what I posted.

I eagerly await your response.

 

[Hammster]

Another false premise.

You are thinking about things within the narrow domain of space/time wherein notions of spatial and temporal relationships are meaningful. To God, these categories are not applicable.

I believe it is fully consistent not only with basic philosophy, but also with Christian philosophy, to affirm that God did not know "beforehand" (since this category is fundamentally ridiculous, philosophically) what the outcomes of God's creative work would be, while also maintaining the fullest notion of divine sovereignty, freedom, and being.

When I see statements such as God not knowing outcomes, I immediately think Open Theism because Open Theism states that God cannot know future events because they haven't happened yet.

So, does God know future events? Does He know how many people will be created and which ones
will be saved?

 

[rogueapologist]

When I see statements such as God not knowing outcomes, I immediately think Open Theism because Open Theism states that God cannot know future events because they haven't happened yet.

Notwithstanding your rather over simplistic definition of OT, if you'll re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I never denied God knowing outcomes...what I denied was Skala's butchered attempt at describing the nature of divine epistemology by using material categories. What I find inconsistent is that Skala can get away with advocating pantheistic materialism in an OBVIOUS way (which I assume would be against the rules...), and yet I get called on something not even related to what I was saying.

So, does God know future events? Does He know how many people will be created and which ones
will be saved?

I really don't know how to answer this, given the fact that the tensed categories (future, past, future-perfect) in which they are framed are irrelevant in a discussion of divine epistemology. There is no "future" to God, an there is no "created" to God, and there is no "saved" to God...God is not bound to time/space, so to bind divine epistemology to the domain of creation is also inappropriate.

 

[Epoisses]

Notwithstanding your rather over simplistic definition of OT, if you'll re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I never denied God knowing outcomes...what I denied was Skala's butchered attempt at describing the nature of divine epistemology by using material categories. What I find inconsistent is that Skala can get away with advocating pantheistic materialism in an OBVIOUS way (which I assume would be against the rules...), and yet I get called on something not even related to what I was saying.

Skala toes the party line so he gets a pass.

 

[Hammster]

Notwithstanding your rather over simplistic definition of OT, if you'll re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I never denied God knowing outcomes...what I denied was Skala's butchered attempt at describing the nature of divine epistemology by using material categories. What I find inconsistent is that Skala can get away with advocating pantheistic materialism in an OBVIOUS way (which I assume would be against the rules...), and yet I get called on something not even related to what I was saying.



I really don't know how to answer this, given the fact that the tensed categories (future, past, future-perfect) in which they are framed are irrelevant in a discussion of divine epistemology. There is no "future" to God, an there is no "created" to God, and there is no "saved" to God...God is not bound to time/space, so to bind divine epistemology to the domain of creation is also inappropriate.

I don't believe I said, or implied, that God was bound to time and space. So your answer is nonsensical to any discussion of theology. Philosophy? Maybe. But that's in another forum.

 

[Hammster]

Skala toes the party line so he gets a pass.

If you think he's posted something unorthodox, by all means report him. It will be dealt with.

 

[rogueapologist]

I don't believe I said, or implied, that God was bound to time and space. So your answer is nonsensical to any discussion of theology. Philosophy? Maybe. But that's in another forum.

Huh? Look at the last two questions you asked me. They both presume a rather material view of divine epistemology. To answer the question would be to affirm that the materialist view is correct, which I reject.

 

[Hammster]

Huh? Look at the last two questions you asked me. They both presume a rather material view of divine epistemology. To answer the question would be to affirm that the materialist view is correct, which I reject.

Fair enough.