What happens to people who die without having believed in Jesus?

[lismore]

What happens to people who die without having believed in Jesus?

 

[apocalypto]

Hell!

 

[Bob Carabbio]

That about covers it -n/p

 

[lismore]

That about covers it -n/p

n/p?

 

[GreatistheLord]

not really. God judges according to accountable sin, and judgement varies according to the revelation of sin (Capernaum and Sodom). A 1 day old foetus will be judged much differently to an old priest.

"but sin is not counted where there is no law." Rom 5:13

 

[Bob Carabbio]

n/p = no post. None necessary

 

[Tobias]

What happens to people who die without having believed in Jesus?

Abraham, Issac, and Jacob each died without believing in Jesus.



Or did they? It all depends on what we define "believing in Jesus" to mean. More importantly, how does God define it?

I think we get hung up on theology and all the "necessary" details about Jesus' life we imagine are imperative to know for salvation to take place. But folks in the OT times were "saved" simply by having faith in a God who was capable of bridging the gap between Himself and Mankind.

I'm beginning to wonder if that is the key. That belief in Jesus is really just our Christian understanding of the real truth, which is belief in the Grace of God which wipes away all the guilt of our sins. They say that there are a billion Christians on the planet, but we all know that many of them do not "believe in Jesus" correctly. Is it head knowledge that they have incorrect, or perhaps something spiritual (like a healthy understanding of Grace) that keeps them struggling against sin in the hopes of pleasing God through good works?

 

[Jope]

Abraham saw Jesus,how could he not have believed in him.Whoever is obedient to God will accept Jesus.Those that died without Christ will be judged on that basis.However ,an honest person would have accepted Christ, if he had been given the chance.Since God gave a second chance to those that died without the knowledge of Christ during the great flood,it is likely that everyone will ultimately be given the chance to accept or reject Jesus Christ.

 

[Andre77]

not really. God judges according to accountable sin, and judgement varies according to the revelation of sin (Capernaum and Sodom). A 1 day old foetus will be judged much differently to an old priest.

"but sin is not counted where there is no law." Rom 5:13

What is accountable sin? If I do not know that sloth is sin, will it not make me guilty of that sin?
The Bible clearly teaches that if you have transgressed one commandment, you have transgressed all.

You seem to suggest that those that have never been exposed to the Gospel will be "pardoned" as they "did not know"?

Yet the Bible clearly teaches that all men are guilty . (Ecc 7:20, Ps 143:2, Rom 3:19,23, 1 John 1:8 etc.) as all have transgressed the law. That is exactly the purpose of the law- to show us that we are guilty. No one can claim righteousness (or ignorance).

How is any person to be saved ? Claimed either through ignorance or faith? No, the whole Bible tells a totally different story, it is only by grace and through faith and by the blood of Jesus that we are saved - removal of ALL sin through His blood and thus no trace of sin on which to judge.

This is a hard saying but exactly what the Bible teaches throughout - Old and New Testament.

Has the law been abolished? - No it is still in force for those that are under the law (the unsaved).

To suggest that different people will be treated differently (i.e foetus), finds no proof in the Bible. If it was so, our righteousness is not that of Christ, but our own based on the "number of transgressions" or ignorance. Christ has removed all sin.

The Bible however speaks of "rewards" based on our lives.

 

[Andre77]

not really. God judges according to accountable sin, and judgement varies according to the revelation of sin (Capernaum and Sodom). A 1 day old foetus will be judged much differently to an old priest.

"but sin is not counted where there is no law." Rom 5:13

What is accountable sin? If I do not know that sloth is sin, will it not make me guilty of that sin?
The Bible clearly teaches that if you have transgressed one commandment, you have transgressed all.

You seem to suggest that those that have never been exposed to the Gospel will be "pardoned" as they "did not know"?

Yet the Bible clearly teaches that all men are guilty . (Ecc 7:20, Ps 143:2, Rom 3:19,23, 1 John 1:8 etc.) as all have transgressed the law. That is exactly the purpose of the law- to show us that we are guilty. No one can claim righteousness (or ignorance).

How is any person to be saved ? Claimed either through ignorance or faith? No, the whole Bible tells a totally different story, it is only by grace and through faith and by the blood of Jesus that we are saved - removal of ALL sin through His blood and thus no trace of sin on which to judge.

This is a hard saying but exactly what the Bible teaches throughout - Old and New Testament.

Has the law been abolished? - No it is still in force for those that are under the law (the unsaved).

To suggest that different people will be treated differently (i.e foetus), finds no proof in the Bible. If it was so, our righteousness is not that of Christ, but our own based on the "number of transgressions" or ignorance. Christ has removed all sin.

The Bible however speaks of "rewards" based on our lives.

 

[GreatistheLord]

What is accountable sin? If I do not know that sloth is sin, will it not make me guilty of that sin?
The Bible clearly teaches that if you have transgressed one commandment, you have transgressed all.

You seem to suggest that those that have never been exposed to the Gospel will be "pardoned" as they "did not know"?

Yet the Bible clearly teaches that all men are guilty . (Ecc 7:20, Ps 143:2, Rom 3:19,23, 1 John 1:8 etc.) as all have transgressed the law. That is exactly the purpose of the law- to show us that we are guilty. No one can claim righteousness (or ignorance).

How is any person to be saved ? Claimed either through ignorance or faith? No, the whole Bible tells a totally different story, it is only by grace and through faith and by the blood of Jesus that we are saved - removal of ALL sin through His blood and thus no trace of sin on which to judge.

This is a hard saying but exactly what the Bible teaches throughout - Old and New Testament.

Has the law been abolished? - No it is still in force for those that are under the law (the unsaved).

To suggest that different people will be treated differently (i.e foetus), finds no proof in the Bible. If it was so, our righteousness is not that of Christ, but our own based on the "number of transgressions" or ignorance. Christ has removed all sin.

The Bible however speaks of "rewards" based on our lives.

Does God condemn all mutes or foetuses or mentally handicapped children to hell because they cant confess, much less understand Jesus? NO. I dont have every answer, but I know that God is righteous and just, and loving.

If your theology paints God a monster, better to be agnostic and silent, because we dont actually know or understand everything. Thats in the Bible too.

 

[Andre77]

Does God condemn all mutes or foetuses or mentally handicapped children to hell because they cant confess, much less understand Jesus? NO. I dont have every answer, but I know that God is righteous and just, and loving.

If your theology paints God a monster, better to be agnostic and silent, because we dont actually know or understand everything. Thats in the Bible too.

I cannot give you the answer in respect of foetusses , handicapped as it is nowhere indicated. I trust God to be righteous but I am not describing who He must save.

However none can claim the "right to "salvation because of his/her inability to "understand", not being exposed to the Gospel or any other reason we think should "carry weight".

We are all destined for hell, unless the Father in his mercy smiles on us - not because of who we are, but because of His sovereignty.
Rom 9:15 For He said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will pity whomever I will pity.
"Rom 9:16 So, then, it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of the One showing mercy, of God.

Thus who goes to heaven is not our decision, but the Father's. If you consider one can make a decision for God whilst dead in your sins and an enemy of God without the work of the Holy Spirit, please support this with a few supporting texts.

If you consider merit to have anything to do with it, please quote Scripture in context to support this. Is is the only basis on which one is on solid ground.

Would you thus argue that "good" (in the sense of living a generally good life) Muslims, Hindu's, Atheists can go to heaven because it may be argued that they have never been exposed to the Gospel or Christians have upset them so much that they cannot believe?

But maybe you have texts to support such a view?

Please explain why "my" theology paints God as a monster as I accept that God has every right to do as He wishes (see Ishmael and Jacob/example potter, clay) and can have mercy on whom He wishes, and just very grateful that in His mercy he chooses undeserving people to be His people.

Thanks.

 

[RDKirk]

Does God condemn all mutes or foetuses or mentally handicapped children to hell because they cant confess, much less understand Jesus? NO. I dont have every answer, but I know that God is righteous and just, and loving.

If your theology paints God a monster, better to be agnostic and silent, because we dont actually know or understand everything. Thats in the Bible too.

A couple of things are clear in scripture.

One is that God's judgment does take ignorance into account. The reason an infant who dies is saved is not because he's "innocent," but because he's totally ignorant.

The other is that those of us who have been able to observe creation are held to a minimum amount of knowledge of God's existence, thus are expected to a certain minimum amount of acceptance of him--we can't claim a baby's total ignorance if we've been living a while.

 

[Andre77]

A couple of things are clear in scripture.

One is that God's judgment does take ignorance into account. The reason an infant who dies is saved is not because he's "innocent," but because he's totally ignorant.

The other is that those of us who have been able to observe creation are held to a minimum amount of knowledge of God's existence, thus are expected to a certain minimum amount of acceptance of him--we can't claim a baby's total ignorance if we've been living a while.

Thanks for the post. Please excuse my ignorance, but can you refer me to the relevant Scriptures?

 

[GreatistheLord]

Hello Andre77, you sound like to come from a Calvinist background. The Bible says whoever calls upon the Lord will be saved, and that with the mouth man confesses and with the heart man believes. These are positive statements, and in that, I mean that they *only* say what happens in the positive without necessarily making claims in their absence. For example, those verses cannot be used as proof texts to say that only people with tongues can be saved, or only people with the capacity to believe can be saved. If you can accept that babies are saved, then you cannot promote a ultra-literalist view of a sinners prayer, confessing Jesus, as the only way to heaven.

If you accept that *all* babies who die go to heaven, like most christians, it is completely inconsistent to then say that once a child reaches an age of accountability, that God decides before they are born whether they will be saved or not. At least be consistent and say that all humans, regardless of age of death, go to the place destined for them - that I could respect as being consistent, albeit fundamentally wrong.

If, as Calvin says in his writings, that God plans and ordains the fall of adam and the damnation of mankind so that He can *then* chose to save *some*, then I would say his teachings are to be damned as evil heresy.

 

[RDKirk]

If you accept that *all* babies who die go to heaven, like most christians, it is completely inconsistent to then say that once a child reaches an age of accountability, that God decides before they are born whether they will be saved or not. At least be consistent and say that all humans, regardless of age of death, go to the place destined for them - that I could respect as being consistent, albeit fundamentally wrong.

I've heard Calvinists try to explain why they also believe all babies are saved, but they fail miserably.

 

[RDKirk]

Thanks for the post. Please excuse my ignorance, but can you refer me to the relevant Scriptures?

God was not willing to destroy Ninevah until they had had a witness of Him because He considered them ignorant.

And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand -- Jonah 4:11

In the Mosaic law, atonement for guilt was not necessary until one gained knowledge of his guilt. If he never gained knowledge of his sin, atonement was not necessary.

And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation. Leviticus 4:13, 14

And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; Or if his sin come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. -- Leviticus 4:27, 28

When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish -- Leviticus 4:22, 23

Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. -- Leviticus 5:4

Those without the ability to know what is right are not held accountable for what they do not know.

Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. -- John 9:41

Or maybe somewhat accountable, but knowledge is certainly factored into the severity of the penalty, with the explicitly stated conclusion being that the Master factors the level of knowledge into His judgment:

And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. -- Luke 12:47,48

Now, there are also two examples of condemnation because of knowledge:

And Rahab said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.

For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed.

And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.

Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father’s house, and give me a true token: -- Joshua 2:9-12

Jericho was condemned because they knew the truth of the Lord, but only Rahab acted on her knowledge.

This also applied to Sodom:

And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: -- Genesis 19:1

And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly;

And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds -- 2 Peter 2:6-8

Lot generally doesn't get the credit due him from reading only the Genesis account. But scripture concludes its judgment of Lot saying he was a righteous man, and as a judge at the gates of Sodom, was vexed enough at the evil in that city to provide sufficient witness to condemn it.

The only people who are totally ignorant are infants who die. Everyone else is at least accountable for how they responded to the existence of God and His virtuous nature as revealed in creation. But clearly God factors in their level of knowledge in His judgment.

Job is the example of a man saved without benefit of revelation and without knowing the name of Jesus. Jonah is not of the lineage of Abraham, so he is not saved by that covenant. He does not know the name of Jesus. But as we can see by his plea for a mediator who can lay hands on both him and God, Jonah knows he needs Jesus even without knowing the name of Jesus, because Hebrews tells us that Jesus is that mediator.

 

[Jope]

"After being made alive, he went and preached to the spirits in prison-- to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water"
1 Peter 3v19-20
Even though only eight people were saved from the great flood,Jesus later announced the gospel to those that perished in that flood.

"You seem to suggest that those that have never been exposed to the Gospel will be "pardoned" as they "did not know"?

I did not say that .What I did say is that God will give everyone a fair chance to either accept or reject Jesus based on the fact that he gave another chance to those that perished in Noah's flood.
After all,we are not saved by our good deeds but through Jesus Christ we are given the chance to escape the consequences of our bad deeds.

"He is the savior of all men particularly of those that believe."
1 Tim 4:10

 

[SayaOtonashi]

There who have never word of Jesus will be judge on what they did in life

 

[Andre77]

Hello Andre77, you sound like to come from a Calvinist background. The Bible says whoever calls upon the Lord will be saved, and that with the mouth man confesses and with the heart man believes. These are positive statements, and in that, I mean that they *only* say what happens in the positive without necessarily making claims in their absence. For example, those verses cannot be used as proof texts to say that only people with tongues can be saved, or only people with the capacity to believe can be saved. If you can accept that babies are saved, then you cannot promote a ultra-literalist view of a sinners prayer, confessing Jesus, as the only way to heaven.

If you accept that *all* babies who die go to heaven, like most christians, it is completely inconsistent to then say that once a child reaches an age of accountability, that God decides before they are born whether they will be saved or not. At least be consistent and say that all humans, regardless of age of death, go to the place destined for them - that I could respect as being consistent, albeit fundamentally wrong.

If, as Calvin says in his writings, that God plans and ordains the fall of adam and the damnation of mankind so that He can *then* chose to save *some*, then I would say his teachings are to be damned as evil heresy.

Hi there. My background is Christian and based on the Bible. To put people in "pigeon holes" is an error, I would think, one does not "subscribe" to the views of a specific "view", but only on what the Bible teaches. This error becomes evident when I analyze your response - assuming that I, being a "Calvinist" subscribe to all his views on any topic. Any topic is analysed on the basis of Scripture only.

All our decisions on what is correct or not is based on the Bible only, not on that of any specific denomination. I would however agree that my views on this specific issue is consistent with that normally associated with Calvinism. By this I mean that people are saved the basis of grace only with no merit of our own. I have provided a number of Scriptures to substantiate my view.

In view of this then, I would appreciate if you could support your views with relevant Scriptures.

I have indicated that Scripture has not expressly mentioned foetus or people of lesser intellectual capacity. However you are right that my view is that, based on the fact that we have been "elected" before we were born, a foetus will by implication be one of the elect or not.
The following Scripture support this view.
Rom 9:10 And not only so, but also Rebekah conceiving of one, our father Isaac,
Rom 9:11 for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of the One calling,
Rom 9:12 it was said to her, "The greater shall serve the lesser;"
Rom 9:13 even as it has been written, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau."

Eph 1:4 even as He elected us in Him before the foundation of the world, for us to be holy and without blemish before Him in love,
Eph 1:5 predestinating us to adoption through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.

Joh 3:6 That having been generated out of the flesh is flesh, and that having been generated out of the Spirit is spirit.

There is an abundance of Scripture to support the view I hold and would like to receive Scripture clearly (and not inferences drawn based on a preconceived notion) contradicting this.

Thanks for your comments