Yesterday Madeleine was one of a panel who recorded a two-hour show answering tough questions about God, the Bible, Christianity, Church and life for Life FM’s “The Forum.”
The show which, along with Madeleine, will feature Frank Ritchie, Dale Campbell and host George Penk, will air tomorrow night, Sunday 18 September from 9pm – 11pm NZT (5am-7am Sunday 18 September EDT).
You can listen online here if you are not in New Zealand; the frequencies for if you are in New Zealand are here.
Some of the questions Madeleine answered were:
- Can people who never hear about Jesus go to heaven?
- Is there any actual proof for the resurrection?
- Is abortion ever justified?
- A lot of movies push the idea of having a soul mate. If God has a plan for my life, does that include one specific person I’m supposed to marry?
- Why aren’t Christians doing greater works than Jesus did, like he said they would in the Bible? (John 14:12)
- Do you think that God is ok with the death penalty?
- My friend is really into Harry Potter. Is there anything wrong with that?
- Do you think people who commit suicide can still go to heaven?
- Can you explain the existence of dinosaurs and Neanderthals? Humans never interacted with dinosaurs or there’d be evidence. If God made all the animals for humans, then what’s the point of animals that humans never encountered?
- Is war ever ok in God’s eyes?
- Do Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God? If not, how do you know you’ve got the right one?
- Why didn’t God stop my Dad dying of cancer?
- What’s the point in praying? Does it change God’s mind? Does that mean that he is not already in control?
- Is depression wrong? Is it ever ok for a Christian to have depression?
- It doesn’t seem fair that somebody can get saved on their deathbed after never having to sacrifice for God, while other live for him for years. Will things in heaven be different for these two people?
- I went to a church and they told me if I gave money that God would bless me ten times over. Do you think that actually happens? If not, is there a certain amount that I have to give?
- With all the earthquakes and tsunamis etc recently, do you think that we are living in the end times?
- I don’t get the whole trinity thing. How can God have three different parts without it being three gods? How can Jesus talk to God if they’re the same person?
Tags: Apologetics · Dale Campbell · Frank Ritchie · George Penk · Life FM69 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
No discussion yet?!
Can people who never hear about Jesus go to heaven? Yes. Those post resurrection, probably.
Is there any actual proof for the resurrection? Proof meaning evidence: Yes; documentary evidence
Is abortion ever justified? Only if the mother would otherwise die.
A lot of movies push the idea of having a soul mate. If God has a plan for my life, does that include one specific person I’m supposed to marry? If you pray about who you should marry and follow God’s advice the the question is moot. Some people marry the wrong person, though they do not (usually) remain the wrong person.
Why aren’t Christians doing greater works than Jesus did, like he said they would in the Bible? (John 14:12) Perhaps they are.
Do you think that God is ok with the death penalty? For men who deserve it, yes.
My friend is really into Harry Potter. Is there anything wrong with that? Probably not. Unless he lets it create his worldview.
Do you think people who commit suicide can still go to heaven? Possibly
Can you explain the existence of dinosaurs and Neanderthals? Humans never interacted with dinosaurs or there’d be evidence. There is
If God made all the animals for humans, then what’s the point of animals that humans never encountered? God gave man dominion. There may be animals we will never encounter, but there are ones we are yet to, and they needed to exist from creation.
Is war ever ok in God’s eyes? Yes
Do Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God? Depends what you mean. There is one creator God, All religions claim to worship that same being. But who they claim God to be may not coincide with who God is.
If not, how do you know you’ve got the right one? You worship the creator. Evaluate whether what Christian and Muslims teach about God reflects reality.
Why didn’t God stop my Dad dying of cancer? Specific question.
What’s the point in praying? Good question
Does it change God’s mind? Probably not, but he may alter his actions based on our requests.
Does that mean that he is not already in control? No
Is depression wrong? Depends on the reason, it can be
Is it ever ok for a Christian to have depression? It is right to seek to be free of it.
It doesn’t seem fair that somebody can get saved on their deathbed after never having to sacrifice for God, while other live for him for years. Will things in heaven be different for these two people? No, it is not fair for the persons being saved, it is grace. Question reflects a poor understanding of salvation. Yes, heaven will be different.
I went to a church and they told me if I gave money that God would bless me ten times over. Do you think that actually happens? Not automatically
If not, is there a certain amount that I have to give? No. Give the amount that you feel is generous, not so much you begrudge giving.
With all the earthquakes and tsunamis etc recently, do you think that we are living in the end times? Not certain about the disasters. Last days? possibly last century.
I don’t get the whole trinity thing. How can God have three different parts without it being three gods? How can Jesus talk to God if they’re the same person? Good question. Though they are not the same person, they are the same God. Think of the persons of the trinity and the concept of one God.
My views are fairly close to yours Bethyada.
Am listening to The Forum on radio but have got stuck on the first question, where I felt the panelists’ answers were a bit trite (sorry!). Firstly, the OT examples of men of God who looked forward to Christ is not an option today (I think George picked up on this). Paul makes it pretty clear in the first few chapters of Romans that all mankind can know God but also that all mankind has rejected God. So the only exception to salvation through Christ is if a person who has not heard of Christ has never sinned, which is not feasible. Suggesting other exceptions is emotionally desirable, but is simply not scriptural. Otherwise it would be preferable to have no missions activities whatsoever, so that those who have not heard of Christ can safely go to heaven without the risk of hearing of and rejecting Him. The reality is our great commission is to go and make disciples of all nations. I’m the first to admit to poor performance in this area, but that is our commission.
I couldn’t abide with your views on Harry Potter. Christians must teach their children to stand against the appearance of evil not give it to them to read and say it’s only their imaginations. It is in the imagination that the seeds of evil take control.
I don’t usually wade into such discussions online any-more as they can be very time consuming, but since I was on the show with Madeleine, I will this time 🙂
Jonno1, before I expand my own thoughts a little allow me to ask a question. Do you see the incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension and promise of Jesus’ return as events that narrowed and made salvation harder than it was prior to these events?
Let’s also draw a distinction (though there is much cross-over) between salvation that is my life being made right before God so I can live in submission to Christ now, and what will take place in the future judgement. They are related, but not exactly the same. That’s where the problem was/is with the way the question was worded and therefore how the answers were understood.
Too many people view salvation in terms of what will take place after death – that’s how the question framed it. That way of looking at it isn’t biblical.
Can I be saved now to live a life fully submitted to Christ without hearing about him? I would say no, it’s not possible, but does that exclude me from reward in the new heavens and the new earth at the time of judgement? I would say not necessarily. When the authors in the Bible talk about salvation they’re often talking about a present event – Paul frames it as being wrought upon us by Grace, through faith for good works (Eph 2:8-10) – but you’ll notice that when it talks about judgement it is often talking about what a human does in their life with no reference to their declaration of faith – but reward still takes place through the person of Christ somehow (the ‘how’ varies in the judgement stories).
Mildred – to understand your perspective a little, do you see the Chronicles of Narnia and the Lord of the Rings as giving the appearance of evil as well?
Jonno1 the scriptural basis for the answer I gave on air comes from Paul’s writings in Romans 1-2 – the most pivotal being Romans 2:14-15 (12 and 13 are important for context):
This passage talks of those who have never heard the law (the message of salvation). It suggests that these people are not condemned for not hearing this revelation but rather that they, through their conscience, know what the law requires and are condemned on the basis of their response to this knowledge.
Paul goes on in chapter 3 to state: “21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.”
Here he claims that the righteousness by faith is taught in the Old Testament; he explains this further in Romans 4 by looking at what the law says about Abraham. Paul dismisses the idea that Abraham was saved by his works and focusses on Abraham being saved by his faith – see verse 3: “What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.””
Now Abraham received a revelation and promise from God, that he would be the father of many and he responded by faith; he did not receive explicit teaching about Christ. This is the salvation the prophets and law testifies to. Paul goes on to emphasise and explain this to the recipients of his letter. Then he says in verse 16:
The language in the italicised part clearly parallels the language Paul used a couple of chapters earlier in Romans 2, which distinguished those who received the law from those who did not. Paul is explicit that the same salvation that was available to Abraham is available to all. Why would Paul bring up Abraham in this context if the type of salvation Abraham had was only available to those who lived prior to Christ and thus could look forward to him?
The claim that Abraham was different because he “looks forward to Christ” actually concedes the point. Abraham lived in a time and place where he had not heard the gospel explicitly or any mention that anyone called Jesus Christ would exist on earth one day in the future. But he acted in faith to revelation he received which was only implicitly, no explicitly, about Christ. This is precisely the same situation as those who have not heard the gospel today. Such people live in a time and place where the explicit gospel is unavailable but revelation which is implicitly about Christ.
So Paul states that people who have not heard about Christ explicitly will be judged on the basis of their response to natural revelation in nature, what God has written on their hearts and what their conscience tells them is right and wrong. He also stated that Abraham was saved by his faith in the revelation he had received (which was not explicit knowledge of Christ) and the same method of salvation is available to all Jews and Gentiles both past and present . This is not an exception to salvation via Christ at all because these people are still saved through Christ; there is a difference between claiming one is saved through explicit knowledge of Christ and claiming one is saved through Christ.
Accepting Paul’s teaching here does not compromise mission. This would follow only if the sole reason for engaging in mission was to save souls and mission was the only way god could so this.
Further even if it did compromise mission, God commands us to engage in it so we’d have to do it anyway.
Mildred I don’t think that you have accurately summed up the position I presented on the show. I was quite clear that I endorsed a judicious approach on this subject where parents weighed the level of discernment and wisdom of the child and were involved in their child’s reading of it and how into it they got to ensure that appropriate guidance was involved – for the mature child the books can be used as both entertainment and a discussion and learning point.
I would be interested to hear your response to Frank’s question and I will add in mine: do you think we should let children read the book of Judges or should we worry about what their imaginations will do with the accounts of evil things in it?
If we are to teach our children to stand against the appearance of evil but we won’t expose them to anything appears evil but yet is popular in the world then I wonder how we can teach them proper discernment? I am not convinced that our children will grow to be adults capable of properly identifying evil and responding appropriately to it if they never see it until they are grown and don’t need us/want us to guide them through it. I think there is more risk of them being enticed into engaging in it that way.
@ Frank – thanks for your comments. I couldn’t quite follow them last night & still can’t, but that’s probably me being a bit obtuse, not being a theologian (or even a lawyer).
@ Madeleine – yes, I follow your arguments and agree with most of them, although your antepenultimate para seems a bit contradictory. I guess where we differ is that my view is partly based on Romans 10:13ff:
13 [for] “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
This seems to follow a logical sequence. But the fact is I’d rather you were right than me!
BTW, I came across your blog only yesterday via a website called “Rightwing Monitor”. This site exists to rubbish christians and/or “right-wingers” but actually serves as a convenient one-stop-shop. So I hope you’re flattered by their attention!
Jonno1 – it was late and I was rambling so I completely understand if I didn’t make the point well.
First, I’ll affirm everything Madeleine has said.
My point is focused on the question, why it was problematic, and the verses you have noted in Romans 10.
The question was along the lines of ‘can people who have never heard of Jesus go to heaven?’ This question of heading to heaven or hell when we die is often how we think of salvation. If someone is going to heaven then they are saved, if they don’t, then they are not. We then, in turn, read biblical passages about salvation with that idea in mind. My point is that to think about salvation in that way is incorrect and leads to misreading the Bible.
The Romans passage you have noted fits within the framework of thinking of salvation as something that happens during our life and has a purpose beyond our fate after death. Salvation can simply be defined as life in Christ (the preceding chapters in Romans make that clear and expand on what that means and how it happens). It is clear that we are ‘saved’ for a purpose and that purpose is good works – those works, prepared by God, are the reason we are ‘saved’. It is these works (what we have done) that we are judged on according to the judgement stories present in the scriptures. Thus salvation and judgement are not the same thing (though they have a connection).
So there are actually two questions:
1) can some be ‘saved’ (presnet life lived in Christ for good works) without hearing about Christ? No. Romans 10 makes that clear. Thus if God’s desire for his creation is to be advanced, we need to do mission.
2) Can someone be judged and given reward at the time of judgement without having heard of Christ? Yes.
You’ll see what I’m getting at if you read passages in the Bible that talk about salvation as something that happens in this life and then read what reward or punishment is based on whenever judgement is talked about.
The answer to the second question does not at all diminish that salvation and reward come through Christ.
I’m nowhere near as good at being able to lay out a concise argument as Madeleine and Matt – so if it’s still confusing, forgive me 🙂
Hi ya!
I listened to the whole show.
Welcome back to discussing such things online Frank! 😉
One thing I would like to know Madeleine,
is the answer to Frank’s question…
“Whosoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”
How do you think this verse relates to Jesus?
You guys did great by the way!
@ Frank -thanks for the clarification; seems totally clear now :). I agree that future judgement for christians relates to works (as in gold through to stubble) which is why deathbed repentance is better than nothing but not the best. But I’m uncomfortable with your contention (your point (2) above) that the unsaved can also be rewarded for good works – this seems contrary to scripture and very close to humanism. But perhaps I’ve misunderstood you yet again!
Hi Madeleine,
I was wondering about the example you used on the show about justifiable homicide in the case of home invasion (hitting them with a frying pan). The context was about abortion in the case of rape. Did you mean for your example to apply to a foetus or just an adult? If an embryo invades your home (body) without permission, even if it is not intending to harm you, do you see that as a justification for abortion?
It seemed a bit ambiguous and given the nature of the show there wasn’t much chance for further clarification on your views.
Thanks.
[…] Podcast of last night’s show on Life FM’s The Forum, which featured this blog’s Madeleine Flannagan, along with Frank Ritchie and Dale Campbell, […]
Jonno1 I am sympathetic to the position Bill Craig proposes, which is actually a fairly orthodox position. He summarises it as follows:
“Since Jesus and his work are historical in character, many persons as a result of historical and geographical accident will not be sufficiently well-informed concerning him and thus unable to respond to him in faith. Such persons who are not sufficiently well-informed about Christ’s person and work will be judged on the basis of their response to general revelation and the light that they do have. Perhaps some will be saved through such a response; but on the basis of Scripture we must say that such “anonymous Christians” are relatively rare…. For one could maintain that God graciously applies to such persons the benefits of Christ’s atoning death without their conscious knowledge thereof on the basis of their response to the light of general revelation and the truth that they do have, even as He did in the case of Old Testament figures like Job who were outside the covenant of Israel.” (see his answer in full at Reasonable Faith.)
I am not convinced by your citation of Romans 10 as I think the context of the passage you cite suggests something different. Let’s begin with what Paul says immediately prior:
“11 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame. 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile— the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
The reference to “calling on the Lord” alludes to Genesis 4 where it states:
“25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him. 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD.”
So the act of “calling on the Lord” was something people who did not know the explicts about Christ did prior to the flood – explicit knowledge of Christ seems ruled out by this. The phrase “calls on the Lord” is used throughout the Old Testament in a similar way.
The passage continues:
“14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news! 16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message?”
Here it asks how they can call on the name of the Lord if they have not heard? They need someone to preach to them. As an example of this Paul quotes a passage from Isaiah referring to someone proclaiming the restoration of Israel during time of exile. This is obviously not a reference to someone preaching the explicit gospel, it is rather the message to repent issued to Israel before the time of Christ; a message calling them to repent of their sins and respond in faith to the Mosaic revelation they had received. Paul seems to suggest that if the Jews had responded to this revelation that would count as “calling on the Lord.”
Moreover in v 16, Paul says the Israelites did not accept the gospel (which is simply the greek word for good news) to show this he notes that they rejected the message of Isaiah. So for Paul here rejecting God’s message to Isaiah counts as rejecting the gospel, now obviously Isaiah did not preach the explicit gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection – he was given a message to tell Isreal to repent and turn back to the covenant. Again the issue is wether the Jews responded to the revelation they received not whether they had heard about Christ.
But then it gets even more interesting I think:
“17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”
Here Paul says that faith comes through hearing the word of Christ but look at how Paul explains this. In v 17, after saying faith comes through hearing the word of Christ, he asks “Did they not hear?” Now obviously, in context, he must mean “hear the word of Christ” Paul answers “yes” they did hear the word of Christ and then cites from Psalm 19:
“1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”
Paul here is referring not to preaching or special revelation but general revelation in nature. Pslam 19 states that the natural universe declares the glory of God and this knowledge is like a voice that goes out to all the earth. It is this that Paul identifies with the the word of Christ which has gone out to the world. Consequently, in this passage, when Christ says faith comes by hearing the word of Christ he means to include in that “natural revelation” which all the nations have received. I suggest then that Romans 10 appears to suggest that responding to the revelation one has received even if its natural revelation counts as responding to the gospel and calling on the name of the Lord.
@ Matthew – thanks for that. Yes I do understand this so-called orthodox view and I really hope you’re right, for the sake of the billion or more who have never heard the good news of Jesus. My difficulty is with your conclusion:
“I suggest then that Romans 10 appears to suggest that responding to the revelation one has received even if its natural revelation counts as responding to the gospel and calling on the name of the Lord.”
Verses such as Acts 4:12 and 1 Tim 2:5 seem to suggest otherwise.
“Verses such as Acts 4:12 and 1 Tim 2:5 seem to suggest otherwise.”
Seem to suggest being the key words.
No one is denying that you need Christ to be saved, they are just denying that you explicitly need to know that it is Christ who is saving you.
If they did not deny this – they would not only need to explain how OT people can be saved, but also children who unfortunately die before the age of reason, who are too young to learn who Christ is.
I’d just like to re-state my thanks for this valuable insight into mainstream Christianity in NZ. I’m chugging my way through the mp3s while I mark exams at work.
As I said in the comments of the post where the mp3s were given, I am thoroughly disappointed with the response to the first question.
I understand the reasoning, but disagree with the ultimate conclusions, in part because there seems to be lack of willingness to acknowledge God’s right to make salvation hard. I’ll get to that shortly, but first I want to address Frank’s points about the difference between salvation in life and after it.
Salvation is a process, sure, and it is begun at the moment we are born again. It will continue through our life, and it will be completed when Jesus returns. Anyone who begins this process will finish it, since “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ”. If this is the correct understanding of salvation, then we cannot separate salvation now from salvation to come, lest we lose the value of both. I’m sure you will disagree with me Frank, but I want to challenge you, and others, to read scripture with this framework in mind and see if it is not a better one than yours.
Now, back to salvation being hard. We must remember that God is not obliged to save anyone who has not kept them self spotless, and we know that none have. This means that nobody is deserving of the mercy of hearing the good news. Also, nobody is deserving of salvation, even if they hear the good news. God would be perfectly just to allow every single person to reject the gospel.
Taking that reasoning as true, we have to ask ourselves if it matters if God narrowed the way to salvation. I’m not necessarily saying that is the effect of the new covenant, but if God declared through his word that salvation is only through the name of Jesus Christ, and not merely the substance of Jesus’ work, then is he not still just?
I think he is, if indeed he has narrowed the way. I think he has actually opened the way with the spread of the gospel, beyond the mystery kept by Judaism until the right time. Now that the mystery is no longer, faith spreads much easier. But faith for salvation now has a mechanism that is made clear in Jesus.
The verses that mention “all who call on the name of the Lord” being saved are trying to communicate that both Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews) could be saved. The emphasis is on the ‘all’. I don’t think that these verses have much part in this issue as they are not directly addressing salvation through Jesus or otherwise.
What the team on the podcast seemed to be saying, and what I have the greatest issue with, is that some of our top Christian leaders seemed to be giving a public opinion, in the ears of potential non-Christian listeners too, that you don’t have to believe in Jesus to be saved. The impression I was left with was that you guys were saying that someone who has never heard of Jesus, but who trusts in some other version of God (Allah, Buddah, or whatever combination of other ‘gods’ even), as long as they are sorry for their sin and trust their god to graciously forgive them, then they will make it through judgement along with the sheep on the right side of God. Sorry if that’s a long and hard sentence to follow. Hopefully the gist is clear though.
I believe that we need to be more careful with our words than this. Even if such means of eternal salvation is possible, this would be the exception rather than the rule, otherwise scripture would be more explicit.
Personally, my hope for salvation for those who don’t hear of Jesus lies primarily in the great mercy of God but combined with testimonies of people, e.g. Muslims, who have Christ appear to them, as he appeared to Saul/Paul. It seems that these visions lead people to Christ and they follow on in their lives with a strong witness to the biblical Jesus in places where it seems impossible that they would meet him. I am sceptical about a lot of today’s signs and wonders but I know that God does use them to testify to himself.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond in a meaningful way, and I look forward to listening to the rest of the audio.
@Sam
You say:
“My hope for salvation for those who don’t hear of Jesus lies primarily in the great mercy of God.”
This leads me to wonder why you have issue with anything that was said at all. If you still have hope for their salvation, then you are effectively agreeing with their answer to the question, they were just more specific than you in their answer. Why do you have issue with this?
Hi all, I’m afraid I’m not endowed with enough time to explain at length so this will be really short.
To me this is really simple and I say it completely understanding my responsibility as a Christian with a voice that extends a bit further than many – salvation happens through Christ and only through Christ and the emphasis for any Christian should be on drawing the whole of creation into life in Christ so that all would declare Jesus lord and live as citizens of His Kingdom, participating in God’s work of redeeming and reconciling all of creation back to himself.
That said, God is sovereign and how he judges people through Christ beyond this life is his prerogative and a gift of his mercy, grace and forgiveness that he freely chooses with nobody ‘deserving’ it. I see a clear direction for salvation in this life but in the stories of judgement I see God reserving his right to judge outside of what we may conceive of. I am in no doubt that there will be people who will be rewarded and to me, it will be a surprise.
This does not diminish the need for mission, it simply gives God his sovereign place to do as he pleases outside of any idea of what it should look like.
@Rosjier, I am saying that people are saved by believing in Jesus.
If someone hasn’t heard of Jesus, my hope (as I was talking about it) rests in them hearing of Jesus through a miracle of God. In no way do I believe scripture teaches that someone can be saved without believing in the specific God of the Bible (prior to the revelation of Christ) or in Christ Jesus himself (who is a further revelation of God the father). The only murky area seems to be between the resurrection of Christ and the giving of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
But my issue isn’t with these, so long as the God of the bible is the source of salvation preached, so much as the relatively flippant way that the question was answered. I know that nobody is perfect, but a bit more of a considered answer would’ve been better. This is the heart of what we believe after all. And it definitely seemed that other faiths would be “allowed in” so to speak. A committed Muslim, for example, can not be a part of the kingdom unless he repents and trusts in Christ.
Sam, on the show all three of us agreed that the test for someone who has not heard the gospel of being held to account over how well that person has lived in accord with natural revelation (what we know because God has written it on our hearts and placed it in our consciences) is a very hard test to pass. Salvation is very hard for such people – we were not making the case for salvation being easy.
We believe that a case can be made from Romans that supports the view we offered. We believe this on the basis that we think Scripture (read as a canon – a whole book – so including verses such as Acts 4:12 and 1 Tim 2:5) teaches this and not just that we *want* this to be the case.
Now did we get this across accurately, clearly and precisely on air? That is a different question and different listeners might disagree but having re-listened to it I am not sure, given the time frame, that we could have said it any clearer. I am grateful to you for your feedback as it has given me cause to think on this and see if I can formulate a clearer way of explaining it for future reference.
OK Sam,
I totally misunderstood what you meant.
So I’ll pose the question to you:
Is it possible for a child, who dies before they have a chance to believe in Jesus, to go to heaven?
Thanks for being so open to criticism too! It isn’t easy, I know. Especially when you commit so much of yourselves to helping others and serving God.
I won’t harp on about how the answer came across, but I think we can’t begin to answer the question properly unless we consider what people usually mean when they ask if someone can be saved without knowing Jesus. In my experience it’s usually a Christian someone who is worried about her Muslim friend Ayesha, or a rebellious young man who doesn’t want to commit his life to Jesus, or someone like myself for whom none of my blood relatives are Christians (though I hope my unborn son/daughter will change that as the rest don’t appear likely). I really think it gives a false hope to these types of people if we offer a way “around” Jesus.
But, moving on from that; sorry for not addressing this part earlier: I agree that those without the written law will be judged by natural/general revelation, with their conscience being a key witness, for or against. However, I don’t think there is any room to escape eternal damnation in this, which I think you may have mentioned on the show? In other words, even by our conscience, all have sinned and are guilty before God.
Also, we seem to agree that God must step in and transfer the burden of paying for the crimes onto Jesus.
Where we seem to differ is on the issue of the revelation of God to the person who’s conscience condemns them. Or perhaps on the amount of revelation of God. Or better yet, whether this saving knowledge can come by general revelation alone, or whether some special revelation is required, e.g. by the spirit to give understanding to spoken words or understanding to the gospel recorded in the bible.
Correct me if I’m wrong, and I’m sorry if this mis-characterises your view, but it seems to me you would say that no specific/special knowledge of God is really necessary. So that someone can be born again but without noticing any change in their own belief or attitude?
I would say that a certain level of understanding of the character of God, including a measure of knowledge of him satisfying justice in himself, is necessary. There’s a lot more behind that statement, but understanding that all special revelation comes by the Spirit of God (as opposed to the general revelation from nature) solves the problem of detail. God’s spirit will not leave the revelation of himself incomplete, in a partial salvation so to speak. If we think on a human level, then that knowledge can be incomplete, but that’s not what is at issue in this discussion.
So, to make the question clear I guess, are you saying that no special revelation is necessary for salvation? and if you agree that some special revelation is necessary, what exactly is revealed?
That is a great question Rosjier, and I don’t think that scripture is clear enough for us to make an absolute statement on that.
What I do know, in no particular order, is that:
1. Psalm 51:5 and other places seem to indicate that we are born with a sinful nature that requires redeeming. So that no matter what age we are corrupt. I have a notion that the virgin birth of Christ was what allowed him to avoid this corruption.
2. God is abundantly merciful
3. God loves children, e.g. Jesus words in Matthew 19:14
4. King David mourned while his child was sick, but not once it had died. I think this implies that the child had gone to a better place or at least that David had hope (2Samuel 12:22-23). Remembering that David was a man after God’s own heart, I think we can safely copy his attitude.
5. God is just
All of this suggests, but without absolute certainty, that children and babies (both born and unborn) who die, will go to be with the Lord. For those who then say, why don’t we guarantee kids going to heaven by killing them, well then we have a clear picture from scripture of what God thinks of that!
Hope that makes sense.
@Sam
Thanks – I think that was a good answer!
However I would like to point out that,
“All of this” ALSO suggests that:
“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.”
I do not believe they NEED a “special revelation” of Christ,
Neither would children and babies (both born and unborn) who die need this special revelation.
Thanks Rosjier.
Can you tell me about your picture/icon? I’ve seen it before but can’t remember the details. I remember reading about an artist incorporating a “tesseract”(?) into his art but that’s all.
Back to the topic at hand, I don’t think all of those 5 points suggest people can be saved without special revelation. Only points 1, 2, and 5 are relevant I think. This means there is less support for adults without special revelation than infants.
Just to emphasise a point. Salvation occurs when the Spirit causes a person to be born again (John chapter 3). Our understanding of salvation must take this into account. Salvation is not a process that can be isolated from God when someone just acts on some new knowledge. That is a part of it, but there is also a fundamental change of being that occurs according to scripture.
It is a painting (or a picture rather than an icon) somehow back in the day when it was done the artist knew that the tesseract was a 4dimensional cube folded down into 3dimensions. He incorporated it into the cross to show that the saving power of the cross is applied outside time (which is thought to be the 4th dimension) or throughout all time, which is actually quite on topic; this shows that the cross is the reason why fathers like Abraham are saved.
“Salvation occurs when the Spirit causes a person to be born again (John chapter 3). Our understanding of salvation must take this into account. Salvation is not a process that can be isolated from God when someone just acts on some new knowledge. That is a part of it, but there is also a fundamental change of being that occurs according to scripture.”
Yes, I mostly agree (wouldn’t need to be “new knowledge”). Salvation is a process that starts when the Holy Spirit enters us, this happens at baptism. (John chapter 3) is most apt, as it talks about being born again by “Water and the Spirit.” When someone is baptised this is when that fundamental change happens; they start the process of Salvation, their sins are washed away, they have entered the death of Christ (so they can hope to share in His resurrection), and have entered the kingdom of God. This starts the normal ordinary process of salvation.
Someone who has decided to be baptised, but unfortunately dies before they’re decided baptism day, has a different Baptism (an extra-ordinary one), called “Baptism of desire.” In this case it is an explicit Baptism of desire that allows this person to enter heaven. In the case where someone, who through no fault of their own, does not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seeks God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, tries in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience, – we can say they have an implicit Baptism of desire, as they would choose Baptism if the choice was offered to them.
To stretch this to include all little children and babies born and unborn is possible, but harder than including the adults, so I would suggest that there is less support for infants without than adults (if neither have been physically baptised.)
BTW
Any chance you can answer that question Madeleine?
– How do you think this verse relates to Jesus?
“Whosoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”
Sam so let me understand this you think both: (a) that infants who die at birth or before birth can gain salvation and also that (b) a certain level of understanding of Gods character and the nature of justice is necessary for salvation.
Given that we know infants lack the ability to understand these things and in fact lack even the ability to form rudimentary beliefs (a) and (b) are contradictory.
Matthew, If one were to hold to both points as complete statements then yes they would contradict.
I’m only saying that scripture ‘suggests’ there is a different case for children and babies. For those with understanding it is pretty clear though. Point a) has a lot of flexibility and point b) may include a clause for those without the ability to understand the gospel or to consider what nature reveals. How can a baby be held accountable if it has no ability to be condemned by it’s non-existent conscience? Yet adults in isolation stand condemned by these because they have understanding and a conscience.
I guess it is possible that children and babies are not saved, but that seems to go against the character of God. Then again, compared to God, we are all as babes in understanding and are all born in sin.
God is just and I trust him beyond my ability to know what is just.
“I guess it is possible that children and babies are not saved, but that seems to go against the character of God.”
It also goes against the charater of God to condemn those who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel, in fact doesn’t God actually say that if we do not tell them, then he holds us accountable for their sin and NOT them?
Rosjier, are people condemned for not believing the gospel or for being sinful creatures?
“Rosjier, are people condemned for not believing the gospel or for being sinful creatures?”
You are asking the wrong question. What I presume you mean is: “Why do people go to hell?”
The answer is for not accepting God’s free gift of everlasting life.
This can be done (includes but is not limited to) by “not believing the gospel”. If you hear the gospel, are convicted of its truth, but refuse to believe it – I would say it doesn’t look good for you.
This can also be done by being sinful. If you believe the gospel, and decide to remain living in sin- I would say it doesn’t look good for you.
WOW! They sure didn’t throw you any softball questions. Good job! As for the question “can people who never hear of Jesus go to heaven,” I refer to Romans 1:18-25.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 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, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
My understanding of it is that God has revealed Himself in all creation, and being made in His image, we have a natural desire to be in communion with Him. We either embrace that desire and worship the Creator, or reject it by worshipping the created. Knowing the name of Jesus, or that God sent his Son to die for us, is irrelevant in this case, because God knows the desires of their hearts. This is grace.
*clap*clap*clap*
Well said Carl
Can people who never hear about Jesus go to heaven?
What is sin and what is God’s remedy for sin:
Firstly we need to understand the nature of sin; how it manifest in the first place, how it is passed on, and what God’s remedy for sin is. These are important considerations if we want to adequately address the above question.
Sin entered the human race [and all creation] when Adam & Eve disobeyed and rebelled against God and ate of the forbidden fruit. The entire creation was changed under the curse of the fall, and the physical death of all living creatures started at this time. Additionally spiritual death [separation from God] entered the human race [Adam & Eve and all their descendants]. Spiritual death is passed from father to children – this is a blood curse and explains why Christ had to be born of a virgin so that, humanly speaking, He was born without the [blood] curse of sin. This is also why we see the importance of the shedding of blood, usually of an innocent lamb, on behalf of the sins of people in the Old Testament. The blood curse can only be removed through blood sacrifice.
Sin is only forgiven/remitted through the shedding of innocent blood on behalf of sinners:
In the OT animal blood was shed as a covering [or downpayment] for sin. The priest/high priest officiated on behalf of the [Jewish] people. [And similarly with Abraham, *Cain & Abel, **Adam & Eve et al prior to the Jewish people.] But had to be repeated as it only covered past sin. This pictured the yet future “payment in full” when Christ died on the cross and shed His blood for ALL of humanity’s sin; past, present and future. In reality ALL sin of all people is paid on their behalf by Christ’s shed blood. To appropriate that forgiveness of sin (and therefore salvation) one has to believe that God/Christ has paid [will pay; OT saints] for our sin Himself.
We see this pictured in the OT when Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac in obedience:
Note the phrase “God will provide himself a lamb”. This is actually a play on words. While God did indeed provide a lamb/ram for the sacrifice [instead of Isaac], this phrase ALSO reveals in a prophetic sense that “God Himself” will become that very lamb; Christ the Lamb of God whose shed blood is the all sufficient payment in full for sin [for those that believe on Him].
* Note: Cain & Abel:
Why did God accept Abel’s offering but reject Cain’s?
The answer is actually quite simple in light of what I’ve just outlined above:
Abel sacrificed an animal [remember Heb 9:22 “without shedding of blood is no remission”]; its blood covered his sin. Whereas Cain only brought fruit and vegetables; no blood, no remission of sin, therefore an unacceptable sacrifice/offering.
**Note Adam & Eve:
Even right back in the garden of Eden and immediatly following Adam and Eve’s sin and fall, God provided animal skins to “cover their shame [sin]”. Remember that prior to the fall there was no death. God providing animal skins to “cover” Adam and Eve reveals that God took the life of these animals – shed their blood – and while these coverings were to hide their physical nature, the shedding of innocent animal blood ALSO pictures God covering their sin and therefore their fallen spiritual state. These animals were perhaps the very first creatures to die following the fall, and picture future animal blood sacrifices for sin in the Old Testament, and the ultimate and final sacrifice [for sin] of Christ [the Lamb of God] on the cross in the new Testament.
Christ’s death and sacrifice on the cross:
Of course, after the once-for-all-time sacrifice through Christ’s shed blood was made, there was no longer any validity in sacrificing animals as a temporary payment for sin; full payment of the debt owed does away with the need of any further part payments.
The ONLY option which is left for someone wishing to have forgiveness of sin, and therefore that they become recipients of salvation and eternal life, is to place their faith upon Christ’s death on the cross that they might be PERMANENTLY washed of their sin [past, present and future] through His shed blood.
So in summary:
In the Old Testament sin was only covered through animal blood sacrifice on peoples’ behalf, and by these individuals having faith that God’s provision for sin remitted them of their PAST sin. Further blood sacrifices were required for future and subsequent sin. Animal sacrifice in the OT was only a downpayment for sin and pictured the payment-in-full which would occur when Christ [the Lamb of God] died on the cross. OT saints were ultimately forgiven of their sin [and received salvation] through Christ’s future death on the cross, and their faith in God’s [future] provision for their sin.
In the New Testament, after Christ’s death, those people who put ther faith in Christ’s shed blood for their sins [PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE] are washed clean from the curse of the fall, are made new creatures in Christ, and obtain salvation the instant they believe on God’s all sufficient sacrifice for sin. And while future sins are to be repented of, this in no way effects a person’s salvation. Although it may effect their rewards when, as believers, they stand before the judgement seat of Christ where their works following salvation are judged – they may be rewarded or suffer loss of reward. Their salvation is never in question though.
So back to the question, “Can people who never hear about Jesus go to heaven?”
Since Christ’s death there have existed no other methods of payment for sin, and therefore I believe scripture is clear that salvation and forgiveness of sin is NOT AVAILABLE to “people who never hear about Jesus”; who never hear the gospel of Christ, and therefore never believe on Christ for forgiveness of sin and salvation.
Any individuals who do not hear of Christ, though, will be held to lesser account than those who reject Him having heard the gospel:
Remember Rom 2:12:
Similarly, sinners who die without hearing the gospel of Christ will likewise perish [suffer spiritual death] without having knowingly rejected Christ; they will still perish for their unforgiven sin but will suffer least/less in hell.
[Disclaimer:
Those who truly seek God will find Him:
True seekers of God will be led by the Holy Spirit to Christ.
Today, for instance, if the testimony of creation and conscience leads one to seek after [the true] God, then the Holy Spirit’s job is to lead such an individual to where they can have the gospel of Christ presented to them. Their response to the gospel then determines their eternal destiny.
Discussing salvation [for us today] outside of Christ is both dangerous and misleading, and encourages people to put their faith where I believe scripture makes clear there is none.]
Well said Kris K.
Another thought; putting mission aside for a moment, imagine a refugee who came to NZ being asked: “Do you believe in God?”. Answer: “Well, I recognise through creation that there must be a supreme being, so yes, I believe in god”. Next question: “Have you heard of Jesus Christ?”. “No, who is he?”. “Oh, never mind, forget that I asked”.
OK, a bit of a stretch, but I’m sure you get my point!
Indeed, Jonno.
And I hope other Christians [& seekers of the true God] get the point of the following verses:
Kris, I think I have a basic grasp of the gospel but thanks for that.
You assert that sacrifices in the Old Testament prefigure Christ’s death and that Christ’s death atones for sin past, present and future. As I noted above, the position that Madeleine articulated on the show was drawn from William Lane Craig,
This position explicitly accepts that people gain salvation through Christ’s atoning death. No one denied this, Madeleine certainly did not; the question is whether one needs conscious knowledge of Christ’s death to appropriate salvation.
You go on to assert that “to appropriate that forgiveness of sin (and therefore salvation) one has to believe that God/Christ has paid [will pay; OT saints] for our sin Himself.” To substantiate this you provided the example of Abraham in Gen 22 but here I think you miss a few things.
First, when Paul cited Abraham as a paradigm of justification by faith he did not cite Gen 22. Here is the passage in Romans 4:
Here, Paul is quoting from Genesis 15, which is:
Here the text is quite clear that Abraham is justified because he trusted God’s promise regarding him having many offspring. The text does not mention sacrifices at all.
The passage you cited comes some seven chapters later, after Abraham was already justified for his faith in God’s promise regarding offspring. Paul is quite clear about this. He states:
Paul states Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. However, Abraham was circumcised in chapter 17, five chapters before Genesis 22. Your claim that Gen 22 shows Abraham was saved because of the belief expressed in this passage about Isaac is not supported by the text.
This would be a misrepresentation of Gen 22 anyway. You suggest Abraham, in this passage, has faith that “God will provide a lamb of sacrifice” in place of Isaac. Unfortunately this is false. The passage you cite is Abraham reassuring Isaac not Abraham expressing his own faith. The book of Hebrews, which you cited from in your comment, tells us Abraham, in fact, did not think God was going to offer a substitute sacrifice instead of Isaac. Hebrews 11 states:
This text states, Abraham had faith in God’s promise that his offspring would be reckoned through Isaac and for this reason believed God would raise Isaac from the dead after the sacrifice had actually been carried out. He, apparently, did not believe God was going to offer a substitute instead of Isaac.
I’ll also address your later two citations.
First is was 2 John 1:9: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.”
Here is what the passage says in context:
So here John is addressing believers who haveheard about Christ and is warning them to be on guard against people who teach error. John warns them to not “lose what they have worked for” by abandoning the teaching they have heard and received. That’s why in the passage you cite, John talks about “continuing” (or abiding) in that doctrine. To suggest then that this passage is talking about people who have not heard Christ is to really distort the text.
You also cited John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.” This passage does not state that one must believe specific doctrines about Christ to be saved. It states that no one comes to the father except through him. As I noted, neither Madeleine or anyone else on the show denied that people are saved through Christ. The issue is wether they need conscious knowledge of Christ to be saved. My suggestion is that the case of Old Testament believers shows this is not the case; rather salvation is appropriated through faith in whatever revelation one has received, as in the case of Abraham. So citing this passage shows nothing at all.
I note you do not address the passage I cited earlier from Romans 10, which does address the question of those who have not heard. Here is what Paul says:
Here in v 14 Paul asks how a person who has not heard of Christ can be saved. His answer is not to claim they cannot be; rather, he claims that the whole earth has heard the word of Christ and he cites Psalm 19 which refers to God’s natural revelation in nature. The implication here is quite clear: if a person responds in faith to this message then they have “called on the Lord” and hence can be saved.
You did respond in a disclaimer to several passages I did not cite but that hardly addresses my point.
Hmm, I must admit that when I first commented on this topic (followed by similar remarks from Sam Hight & Kris K), in my naivety I expected a response like “thanks, point taken, we didn’t make that very clear”. Instead, a series of rebuttals has ensued! This idea that conscious knowledge of Christ is not required for salvation is news to me, although I accept that young children and others lacking the ability to reason, eg adults with intellectual disabilites, are covered by grace in this regard.
The question “what about those who havent heard the Gospel?” is often raised by people as a way of avoiding making a conscious responce to the Gospel. Rather they bring up a red herring that has no relevance to their own position.
Those who have heard are called to respond and having responded to share it with others.
The fact that God wants us to respond and share doesnt limit God to our limits. Why would we assume this? Even more odd is that Christians [supposedly with some knowledge of God and His grace toward us] should think that God will not extend that grace to others or that he might treat others unjustly. We are responsible for responding to the revelation God has made to us. For some that has come as a full presentation of the Gospel, for others an awareness of the created world, maybe for others it is as little as being aware of how we like to be treated and extending that to the way we treat other people. The thing is that God deals with each of us individually and how He deals with someone else does not provides us with an excuse for not responding.
Matthew, thanks for your rebuttal.
You said:
Well I’m glad someone does. Although reading some of the comments in this thread, and hearing people so adamantly stating that salvation is available to people [today] who don’t believe on Christ, was causing me some concern in this regard: It’s NOT the gospel I’m familar with.
And that you query sacrifices in the OT prefiguring Christ’s death for ALL sin likewise also.
I notice, too, that you didn’t mention the shed blood of Christ even once. Or pick up on the point I raised regarding:
My understanding of the shed blood [of Christ] is pretty foundational to the gospel message, or do you disagree? How else are sins remitted, Matthew?
And you state, regarding Romans 10:14-18, that:
Once again, I think you’re quite wrong in your understanding and the conclusions you draw.
Lets have a look at Romans 10:14-18 and include vs 13 for, you know, context:
Hmm, seems “call[ing] upon the name of the Lord” is pretty central to “be[ing] saved”. And the name of the Lord, in New Testament times, is “the Lord Jesus Christ”. While in OT times, as now, the testimony of creation speaks of God, this in no way diminishes the need today to respond directly to the gospel of Christ. Paul makes it clear that they only hear when someone preaches the gospel of Christ. Of course hearing is NOT enough, they must “obey” and “believe” on the gospel of Christ [the Lord] to be saved.
If we accept your conclusion [quoted just above], Matthew, then one gets the impression that the Great Commission is unnecessary. And not only that, but Christ coming into the world, dieing on the cross, and shedding His blood [for the remission of sin] was also, similarly, unnecessary. Once again, not the gospel I’m familar with.
And what do you make of the following:
Seems to me that personally “knowing” the Lord Jesus Christ is central to the gospel message. And while these people, referred to above, believed themselves to be “in Christ”, it is quite clear they were not. How much less, then, can those who have never heard the gospel message know Christ personally; where knowing Christ is clearly pre-requisite to both salvation and entrance to heaven?
Also, I think both your understanding of, and your conclusions regarding 2 John 1:9 and John 14:6-9 are quite wrong. Perhaps that’s because you don’t read them in the King James Version.
Like I said earlier:
Discussing salvation [for us today] outside of Christ is both dangerous and misleading, and encourages people to put their faith where I believe scripture makes clear there is none.
I’ll leave you with it.
Is abortion ever justified?
See ‘180’ Movie – this 33 minute movie was released online yesterday. http://www.180movie.com/
The trailer for it is here: Pro-Choice to Pro-Life . . . in Seconds! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxou1UADa4E
“Discussing salvation [for us today] outside of Christ is both dangerous and misleading, and encourages people to put their faith where I believe scripture makes clear there is none.”
With today’s modern communications and world-wide interconnectedness, I would say this is true for the vast majority because very, very few actually have not heard of Christ. Just a few months ago I remember a news story of an unreached people group deep in the Amazon jungle that had just been discovered, so there was nobody that told them about Jesus. Are they condemned simply because they have not heard of Jesus? I don’t believe God would be just if that were the case.
“Seems to me that personally “knowing” the Lord Jesus Christ is central to the gospel message. And while these people, referred to above, believed themselves to be “in Christ”, it is quite clear they were not. How much less, then, can those who have never heard the gospel message know Christ personally; where knowing Christ is clearly pre-requisite to both salvation and entrance to heaven?”
Knowing Christ is, indeed, central to salvation. Hearing of His name is not. His shed blood was atonement for ALL sin, past, present, and future. Abraham was justified by faith, yet he had never heard of Jesus. He did, however, trust that God was going to provide redemption.
Colosians 1:13-23
13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. 21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.
All things were made by Him, through Him, for Him, and He is in all things. He is revealed in all creation, because He IS IN all creation. Through creation the gospel HAS BEEN PREACHED to every creature, though not all have heard of His name, or even know that God came to Earth as man and died on the cross. I believe that to say that you must have heard of Jesus to be saved adds a work to the grace of God. Ultimately, though, can we really say that we know the mind of God enough to say who He will and will not receive unto Himself? From here I will refer back to my earlier reply which I will restate.
“As for the question “can people who never hear of Jesus go to heaven,” I refer to Romans 1:18-25.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 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, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
My understanding of it is that God has revealed Himself in all creation, and being made in His image, we have a natural desire to be in communion with Him. We either embrace that desire and worship the Creator, or reject it by worshipping the created. Knowing the name of Jesus, or that God sent his Son to die for us, is irrelevant in this case, because God knows the desires of their hearts. This is grace.”
We are saved by grace through faith, PERIOD!
Thanks for your reply, Carl.
• “Are they condemned simply because they have not heard of Jesus? I don’t believe God would be just if that were the case.”
Once again, we can only go by scripture.
We must consider how God has manifest Himself in the time we find ourselves – that being; POST the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and after the Holy Spirit has been sent following Christ’s ascension. The same dynamic that operated PRIOR to the cross does not necessarily apply.
Like I said above:
• “Knowing Christ is, indeed, central to salvation. Hearing of His name is not.”
I would argue that one of the FIRST things to support knowing someone is knowing what their name is. When we meet someone for the first time the first thing we do is introduce ourselves ie we exchange names. And just as OT Jews knew God by the name of Yahweh [YHWH] or Jehovah, NT Christians know their Lord and Saviour by the name of Jesus Christ. NT scripture usually directly links knowing the NAME of Jesus Chirst with knowing Him personally:
[See also Romans 10:13-18 which I quoted above]
Even evil spirits know the name of Christ:
Notice those who “are sanctified in Christ” are also “called to be saints” and are the same as those who “call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord”:
Likewise healing of the sick:
• “Abraham was justified by faith, yet he had never heard of Jesus. He did, however, trust that God was going to provide redemption.”
Indeed, but remember this is OT not POST the cross.
• “Through creation the gospel HAS BEEN PREACHED to every creature.”
Not strictly correct, although taking Colosians 1:23 out of context one might think so:
To whom it was preached: To every creature under heaven (Col 1:23), that is, it was ordered to be preached to every creature, Mar 16:15:
It may be preached to every creature; for the gospel excludes none who do not exclude themselves. More or less it has been or will be preached to every nation, though many have sinned away the light of it and perhaps some have never yet enjoyed it.
• “My understanding of it is that God has revealed Himself in all creation, and being made in His image, we have a natural desire to be in communion with Him. We either embrace that desire and worship the Creator, or reject it by worshipping the created.”
While creation indeed bears testimony to the Creator, don’t forget that in reality we [fallen mankind] bear the image of fallen Adam, NOT God. And our “natural desire” is to reject God and His offer of salvation – [Mt 7:13] “broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:”
And, of course, the Lord Jesus Christ IS the Creator: [Joh 1:3] “All things were made by him [the Lord Jesus Chjrist]; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
• “Knowing the name of Jesus, or that God sent his Son to die for us, is irrelevant in this case, because God knows the desires of their hearts. This is grace.”
As I said above, to know Christ – to have relationship with Him – is to know His name. We ONLY have access to, and can know God [the Father] through personal relationship with God the Son; the Lord Jesus Christ:
And God’s GRACE is ONLY available through personal relationship with. and therefore KNOWING, the Lord Jesus Christ.
In fact God the Father has put so much stock in God the Son that He has committed all judgement to Him. That all men [who personally know Jesus Christ] should honour the Son:
God’s GRACE is in fact only measured out to those who come to God on His terms; namely believing on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ:
Some one please corrct me if i am wrong, but i understand the phrase in the “there is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved” the word “name” could be interchanged with “person”. In the time and culture in which this was written a persons name and identity were considered so thoroughly linked as to be one and the same concept.
Consequently its possible [ using contemporary understanding] to put too much emphasis on the word “name” and miss the real meaning of this type of expression concerning the person.
And at the risk of being a little facetious His name wasnt Jesus Christ rather Yehoshua ben Yoseph or maybe Yehoshua Mashiyach
Jeremy,
“Some one please corrct me if i am wrong, but i understand the phrase in the “there is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved” the word “name” could be interchanged with “person”. In the time and culture in which this was written a persons name and identity were considered so thoroughly linked as to be one and the same concept.”
By jove, I think he’s got it!
To know [or call upon] the name of Christ is to know Christ Himself – which is the point I have been making: Salvation is ONLY avalable to those who personally know and have relationship with Christ.
Edit: Salvation is ONLY avalable to those who … come into personal relationship with Christ.
if we need to know jesus name because he has been the sacrificial lamb for our sins and we need to ask him to take our sins, could we still get to heaven by literally sacrificing lambs? there is still a death for our sins, which is the important underlying principle here, and it used to work in the past.
just an after thought, given that in the past people could get to heaven by sacrificing lambs, but jesus died so we don’t need to do that anymore, his death seems more about saving lambs… all it does for mankind is make things more convenient and less messy.
going to heaven has always been about trusting God, the sacrifice of lambs was symbolic and never purchased entry.
further it pointed toward the sacrifice that Jesus would make, trying to go back would be to deny Jesus sacrifice and effectively reject what God has done to make a way for us to reconcile with Him. Hardly a good tactic for getting to heaven, rejecting the way offered.
Can you explain the existence of dinosaurs and Neanderthals? Humans never interacted with dinosaurs or there’d be evidence. If God made all the animals for humans, then what’s the point of animals that humans never encountered?
The Neanderthal were an offshoot of those that left the Ark, they were human in every sense, they had music, art, hunted game, social structures etc.
Dinosaur’s and humans have interacted right through history. Take the ica stones for example, glorious pictures of dinosaurs interacting with humans this is Unmistakable evidence. People are still interacting with them now, we have crocodiles, tuatara, lizards etc.
People think that the word Dragon means something different to the word Dinosaur, but the problem is that the understanding of Latin has been taken out of our schools and science rooms. They both mean exactly the same thing, Terrible Lizards.
@ Ty
http://www.skepdic.com/icastones.html
LOL theology and the people who take it seriously. There is no god, all that is going to happen once you die is your body will slowly decompose into the soil or be burnt. No eternal being cares about you. You religious kooks should stop wasting all you time and effort on such mundane issues. Seriously, get out and go for a run or eat an ice cream.
@Kris
There are many things you said that do not make sense:
First:
Christ had to be born of a virgin.
I do not believe Christ ‘had’ to do anything. Christ is God, and God is all-powerful.
Either you do not believe that Christ is God, or you do not believe that God is all-powerful. Or there is something I am completely missing, please explain.
Secondly Your Theology is backwards:
“This is also why we see the importance of the shedding of blood”
No it’s the other way around. First comes the incarnation, then He chose Mary, then the nation of Israel, then comes the fact that Jesus decided to die for our sins, and then He decided to prepare Israel for His coming sacrifice by asking them to sacrifice lambs.
Next:
“To appropriate that forgiveness of sin (and therefore salvation) one has to believe that God/Christ has paid [will pay; OT saints] for our sin Himself.”
Actually I would say.
To appropriate that forgiveness of sin (and therefore salvation) one has to Repent and be Baptised.
Belief that Christ has “paid for our sin” alone, will get no-one to heaven. Especially if they believe all they have to do is have that belief to be saved, and they don’t need to stop living in sin.
“Of course, after the once-for-all-time sacrifice through Christ’s shed blood was made, there was no longer any validity in sacrificing animals as a temporary payment for sin; full payment of the debt owed does away with the need of any further part payments.”
It’s cool when people have nothing to back up their argument except by starting it with the word “Ofcourse”
“Any individuals who do not hear of Christ, though, will be held to lesser account than those who reject Him having heard the gospel”
Does this mean they end up in a lesser hell?
A response to:
It doesn’t seem fair that somebody can get saved on their deathbed after never having to sacrifice for God, while other live for him for years. Will things in heaven be different for these two people?
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/10/atheistswhat-if-youre-wrong.html#disqus_thread
Enjoy!
@Paul
typical case of some complaining about something Christianity doesnt teach.
@ Jeremy
Care to expand on that?
you guys might like this:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/235341.php
@Paul
-first of all Christianity does not teach that getting saved is a matter of having sacrificed to God.
-second its not about some formulaic action or response
-if some one fancies that they will plan for a deathbed repentance and confession, how seriously do you think God would take that?
– it is about reconciling with God and getting to know Him personally. The dreaded and derided personal experience thing that Madeline has talked about in the past
– so the question comes down to , do you know God personally and have you made friends, so to speak.
-it is possible to get to know some one very late in your life or to reconcile with some one from whom you have been estranged
-but as we keep saying God looks at the heart attitude and motive, not some formula. God is not manipulated by our actions
-friendship with God, like friendship with other people cannot be bought and paid for, its a relationship between two people not a commercial transaction.
I dont know if you have grandkids yet but if so do you love them less because you have known them only months compared to your children or your spouse. If you met some one you really clicked with as a new friend tomorrow are you going to treat them as being of little value compared to an old friend, or might you be keen to introduce them to your other friends?
Was my ability to love my fourth child some how diluted by the presence of the previous three?
God will love and care and relate to any one who comes to Him wanting a real relationship, those who come early get to be friends and enjoy the relationship for a long time, those who come late only briefly, but all friends old and new are treasured.
Will there be a difference in heaven. I guess some will arrive with the confidance and familiarity of old friends, others with little or no experience, it probably wont matter after a while.
@ Jeremy
-if some one fancies that they will plan for a deathbed repentance and confession, how seriously do you think God would take that?
-it is possible to get to know some one very late in your life or to reconcile with some one from whom you have been estranged
Firstly, your two statements appear to contradict each other
Second, according to your logic, as long as a serial killer genuinely accepts god just prior to his death he can enter heaven, but a Starship nurse or doctor who has spent their life caring for sick children, but who is an atheist will not!
Seems a little twisted to me!!!
@Paul, i dont think the two statements are remotely contradictory. If you plan to ignore God your whole life and hope he will accept you at the last minute, how genuine is your repentance ?
Likewise if i finally understand a subject/concept just before the final exam cf some one who grasped it at the beginning of term, i am not disqualified from using that new understanding in the exam.
Your questions/objections reveal a mindset that assumes a place in heaven can be earned or deserved. It can not. The only criterion is the status of your relationship with God.
Who is welcome to dinner at Chez Bennett, family members who may be no one special but love you or famous high achievers who have no interest in knowing you and in fact have refused to get to know you.
I dont think God preferring the company of genuine friends is remotely twisted, and He is far more capable of telling who is genuine or not than we are.
@ Jeremy
Nice try, but you don’t get off the hook so easily.
You clearly stated that one can accept god virtually at death, as long as it is genuine, to enter heaven.
So, regardless of what you personally think of the persons motivation, as you also stated, your god is the only one who is “ far more capable of telling who is genuine or not than we are”.
Therefore, as I stated earlier, your god may decide to allow a serial killer into heaven, if he judges their repentance genuine prior to execution, regardless of how horrific his behaviour in his life to that point has been, yet he will exclude an atheistic doctor or nurse who has worked in Starship for their entire career, as their one sin is non-belief.
Remember you and your god set these rules not me, I’m just pointing out how ridiculous they are.
You are still locked into the idea that we get into heaven based on desrving to or not. The Bible is quite clear that no one deserves or is entitled too. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” and on the subject of earning our way “all our righteouness is as filthy rags”.
Salvation is a gift freely given and accepted, not a right. Yes a genuinely repentant killer can get in while a hard working doctor who has chosen not to get to know God wont. How is this unfair or twisted, God is simply respecting the doctor’s choice.
You also seem to have this funny idea that the doctor would be guilty only of the sin of unbelief. I think i can predict quite safely that you will never find a person any where near that close to perfect. But even if you did, so what, if they refuse the invite to dinner does the host go out and kidnap them, bring them to the table forcibly and against their will.
While we are on the subject Paul, how are you to judge that the serial killer wasnt tormented by mental illness with no idea of what he was doing, but turns to God when he understands what he is and what he has has done. While your supposedly wonderful doctor has done it all for the money and the prestige or simply became a doctor because his parents pushed him to. The truth is , most of the time we have no idea of the motives and thoughts that cross other peoples minds and fill their hearts. Its probably just as well, i would certainly hate my less worthy thoughts to be open to public scrutiny. Would you pretend otherwise?
@ Jeremy
If you’re comfortable with that kind of reasoning then fine, just don’t expect me to join you!
Really Paul are you claiming personal perfection? and that God owes you a place in heaven. Maybe you are claiming to be able to see into the heart of men.
I dont expect you to join me, i think you have been with me all along. I am sure you dont invite people home to dinner who make it plain they want nothing to do with you. I am sure your circle of friends isnt determined by the altruism they show in their work or the value society places on their jobs but rather by your enjoyment of their company and you finding that reciprocated.
@ Jeremy
Claiming “Personal Perfection” was not my intent, and is a monopoly that theists seem to have when they describe the characteristics of the christian god in particular!
Further to that, I certainly don’t believe your god owes me a place in heaven, as I see no convincing evidence to support proof of his existence and in turn heaven.
As far as seeing into the hearts of men, neither I nor you would be able to make such a claim, but I do agree that I find the discussions on this blog, with you and others of interest, but I stand by my assertion that I can’t join you in your beliefs.
Rosjier,
So you deny the virgin birth of Christ was essential?! Especially in light of Him being humanly without sin?! This is pretty fundamental Christian doctrine. Will you next be questioning Christ’s sinlessness was essential and likewise His death on the cross?! I think you need to do some more Bible study.
Are you for real?! And you call MY theology “backwards”.
Good grief!
So, “[r]epent[ing] and be[ing] [b]aptised” but NOT [me:] “believ[ing] that Christ has paid for our sin Himself” will get you to heaven??? Once again, not the gospel I’m familair with.
To “believe on Christ” includes the realisation that (1) one is a sinner, (2) that we cannot earn salvation, (3) that Christ is BOTH God AND a sinless man who died in our stead, and (4) that we must repent and receive Chirst as our Lord and Saviour.
Once again, this is all pretty fundamental stuff.
And by the way, WATER baptism ONLY pictures SPIRITUAL baptism which occurs the instance one receives Christ as Lord and Saviour:
This SPIRIT BAPTISM is the same thing as being SEALED by the Holy Spirit; which occurs the INSTANT we believe upon Christ and BEFORE we are WATER baptised:
[Break]
So you STILL practice animal sacrifice, Rosjier?!
Nothing you can do, no sacrifice you can make, is EVER a substitute for Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. A filthy sinner can never EARN God’s favour through his good works:
[Break]
Well, not so much a “lesser hell”, but certainly a lesser punishment.
Is there any other way to read Romans 2:12:
Similarly, saints/Christians shall receive varing degrees of reward based on their faithfulness:
Note: these are future rewards a Christian will receive for what he does with his life AFTER receiving Christ as Lord and Saviour; for how faithfully he serves his master, and for the motives behind his service.