Pre-Christianity, all people went to Hell.

[7StringedBeast]

I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.

rumborak

If you overanalyze the Bible long enough you'll realize it's a concept album.

POTY haha love this.

[yeshaberto]

I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.

rumborak

If you overanalyze the Bible long enough you'll realize it's a concept album.

POTY haha love this.

genius on so many levels 

[j]

So if under the circumstance that people never hear about Jesus in the first place, God makes them a special deal and lets them into heaven anyway?  In that case, wouldn't it be a better idea to never tell anyone about Christianity so that they get the same deal? 

I mean, obviously someone who hears about Jesus and for one reason or another doesn't get "born again" will go directly to hell.  So it might have been better for that person to never hear the message at all.

I think what yesh and others are saying is that God is just regardless of the individual's circumstances.  So the guy who's never heard of Jesus doesn't automatically get the "special deal".  He's "judged according to his deeds", and according to his individual situation and his life.  Similarly, for example, if a guy heard about Jesus during his lifetime, but maybe he grew up in a strict, uniform Islamic society, God would take into account those cultural biases and the difficulty one would have in overcoming them.  That's what I gather from their posts, anyway.

But that doesn't jibe at all with the theological concept of "salvation through faith and not deeds".

Even though they don't "earn" it, deeds (works) are still a necessary part of biblical faith, and thus salvation, as is made very clear in the NT.  This comes up in practically every thread about Christianity, and the fundamentalist notion of "absolute faith alone" is always debunked (not sure that is what you were getting at).

Either way, I'm with you in being skeptical of all this.  I was just presenting a response to these questions that I've seen many times before.

If you overanalyze the Bible long enough you'll realize it's a concept album.

Brilliant.

-J

[Dr. SeaWolf]

Doesn't that seem a bit like a cop-out to you though?  I don't want to be rude, but it's not the best argument when it comes to someone's eternal soul going to heaven or hell.

are you talking about the line referenced by soundgarden?

I wasn't meaning it in the sense of my god over your god...I only mean it in the sense that by defintion God is God.  I know a lot of people who worry about questions like these as if their worrying is going to "help" God make the right decision.  My point is only that if God is really God, he is pretty capable of doing what is best/right without our help.  If he indeed created the vast expanse of the universe, I don't think he is incapable of understanding the problems that plague us

My objection is with the "whatever God does is right" logic, if indeed people in the jungles of South America who have no idea what Christianity is or who Jesus was will go to hell for eternity despite the fact that they never even had the opportunity to be "born again".  And if they do have a means of going to heaven despite never accepting Jesus as their personal saviour, that's a pretty odd loophole in the "salvation by faith alone" doctrine of evangelical Christian belief.

"Whatever God does is right" isn't really an intellectually satisfying answer, that's all.

Even though they don't "earn" it, deeds (works) are still a necessary part of biblical faith, and thus salvation, as is made very clear in the NT.  This comes up in practically every thread about Christianity, and the fundamentalist notion of "absolute faith alone" is always debunked (not sure that is what you were getting at).

That's not evangelical doctrine as I understand it.  You can live a life of crime and accept Christ on your deathbed and get into heaven.  No "good deeds" are required for admission into heaven, as we're all sinful because of Adam, and Jesus' sacrifice "covers us" from God's judgment resulting from that sin.

[eric42434224]

I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.

rumborak

If you overanalyze the Bible long enough you'll realize it's a concept album.

More like watching The Wizard of Oz and listening to Dark Side of the Moon.

[kirbywelch92]

That's not evangelical doctrine as I understand it.  You can live a life of crime and accept Christ on your deathbed and get into heaven.  No "good deeds" are required for admission into heaven, as we're all sinful because of Adam, and Jesus' sacrifice "covers us" from God's judgment resulting from that sin.

Damn, I want THAT salvation! But no, that's far from reality. That's Southern Right Wing Bible Belt Fundamentalist Christianity. So many Christians and Non-Christians alike view salvation as a button that, when pressed, immediately admits you into heaven. It's like heaven is a TV, and all you have to do is turn it on. This is probably the main reason why most middle class Christians fail at perpetuating an even semi-correct version of the Gospel laid down by Jesus.

The book of James pretty much outlines it well, that faith and good works aren't more important than the other, they are EXPRESSIONS of our new found life in Jesus. It says "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder!" (James 2:17), so just believing in the power of God is not enough either.

If I were going to strip down Christianity to what it's most basic foundation is (and by the way, Christianity is not a simple belief, yet many want to insist that it is, hence the "button" way of thought) a conscious choice brought about by the purity and Spirit of Jesus Christ. Because of our redemption through his blood, we can walk the Earth with a sense of renewal. We are to become "new men" in Christ, not just the same person with a new title slapped on the front.

Faith and good works are expressions of this newfound self, like the building blocks to the foundation that Christ had laid down for us.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

That still doesn't mean a deathbed conversion wouldn't be enough, though.  Also, the Bible's pretty clear that works alone aren't enough, which still means people who haven't ever heard of Jesus or Christianity will not go to heaven.

[bosk1]

The book of James pretty much outlines it well, that faith and good works aren't more important than the other, they are EXPRESSIONS of our new found life in Jesus. It says "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder!" (James 2:17), so just believing in the power of God is not enough either.

For that particular verse, I like the Lee Ermey Version:  "You believe in God?  Good for you!  So do the demons, ya' jack wagon!  *throws tissue box in disgust*"

[j]

That's not evangelical doctrine as I understand it.  You can live a life of crime and accept Christ on your deathbed and get into heaven.  No "good deeds" are required for admission into heaven, as we're all sinful because of Adam, and Jesus' sacrifice "covers us" from God's judgment resulting from that sin.

Damn, I want THAT salvation! But no, that's far from reality. That's Southern Right Wing Bible Belt Fundamentalist Christianity. So many Christians and Non-Christians alike view salvation as a button that, when pressed, immediately admits you into heaven. It's like heaven is a TV, and all you have to do is turn it on. This is probably the main reason why most middle class Christians fail at perpetuating an even semi-correct version of the Gospel laid down by Jesus.

The book of James pretty much outlines it well, that faith and good works aren't more important than the other, they are EXPRESSIONS of our new found life in Jesus. It says "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder!" (James 2:17), so just believing in the power of God is not enough either.

If I were going to strip down Christianity to what it's most basic foundation is (and by the way, Christianity is not a simple belief, yet many want to insist that it is, hence the "button" way of thought) a conscious choice brought about by the purity and Spirit of Jesus Christ. Because of our redemption through his blood, we can walk the Earth with a sense of renewal. We are to become "new men" in Christ, not just the same person with a new title slapped on the front.

Faith and good works are expressions of this newfound self, like the building blocks to the foundation that Christ had laid down for us.

Good post.

That still doesn't mean a deathbed conversion wouldn't be enough, though.  Also, the Bible's pretty clear that works alone aren't enough, which still means people who haven't ever heard of Jesus or Christianity will not go to heaven.

This is true too, I think, except possibly the bolded.  Remaining within the umbrella of what is usually considered "Christianity", you could say that the deathbed conversion was an act of faith--or a "work"--itself, or that God's infinite mercy allows him to make exceptions based on individual circumstances, or a number of other "rationalizations".

For that particular verse, I like the Lee Ermey Version:  "You believe in God?  Good for you!  So do the demons, ya' jack wagon!  *throws tissue box in disgust*"

 

-J

[Dr. SeaWolf]

That still doesn't mean a deathbed conversion wouldn't be enough, though.  Also, the Bible's pretty clear that works alone aren't enough, which still means people who haven't ever heard of Jesus or Christianity will not go to heaven.

This is true too, I think, except possibly the bolded.  Remaining within the umbrella of what is usually considered "Christianity", you could say that the deathbed conversion was an act of faith--or a "work"--itself, or that God's infinite mercy allows him to make exceptions based on individual circumstances, or a number of other "rationalizations".

I'm sorry, but that still doesn't seem right to me.  God is being inconsistent with his judgment in that instance.  Either people are condemned to Hell without Jesus or they aren't.  Otherwise we have to throw out that central aspect of Christian doctrine.

[El JoNNo]

The problem lies with The Bible, it is inconsistent and contradictory in many aspects of it's stances. It is also many times over morally illogical in many of these stances, there is no real way to reconcile it without sending some innocent to the fiery pit. To get around this, many blanket the Bible with there own morality and try to twist what it says so they don't have to think or say "you are going to hell"

Which I think was demonstrated in the thread I made entitled "Am I going to Hell?". Some laid out their beliefs and what is stated within the dogma and would not comment any further, preferring that I draw my own conclusions. Which you know what, I didn't really mind it was merely people being nice and trying not to offend.

Here are your choices in the matter of Heaven and Hell

1. "Only those whom accept Jesus as their savoir are saved"; this is a malevolent God.
Billions burn for mere ignorance and not having the ability to not be ignorant. This is what the Bible says it is morally unjust and therefore would be the workings of an unjust God, which is against what the Bible says.

2. "Those who are good get into heaven anyway"; this is the fair God.
Makes Christianity obsolete and redundant, not only does it invalidate the Bible but there is no reason to go to church, pray or spread the word. Just be a good moral person. You could argue that spreading the word of God will make more better people, I would disagree. Spreading the word that being a good person will get you into heaven would be the adequate route. Not using the Bible at all would be preferred, as it (as mentioned above and the reason this thread exists) is a riddle with non-sense and contradictions.   

3. "Those who are expose to Christianity must get into heaven through big JC, those who don't get into heaven on good behavior."; this is the jerk God.
Those who have the misfortune of being exposed to Christianity have to spend many hours thanking and praising God. These many hours could be spent doing something useful, like washing their car or jerking off. Chances are these Christians are already good people and do good things, btw most of us are. Now all of a sudden they have to go to Church every Sunday (sometimes Wednesdays too!!), praise and thank God for any measly thing that drops by in that persons favor.

All the while the good person without knowing Christianity gets in on being themselves. Now being a Christian does have it's pros'; for instance if you do something bad you can be forgiven and all those hour of praying will probably tip the scales too. Now the non-Christian is in a slightly worse sin-ario (see what I did there?), as it stands there was no one for the non-Christian to ask forgiveness from (well unless you count the one they committed the crime against. YAY for vicarious redemption! You don't have to face the one you wronged!). So logically the pros and cons of the non-Christians life will be weighed, unless there is some of that God knows your heart stuff in there.

So one way the Christian is at the disadvantage the other they have the advantage, either way it is unfair.

4. "God/gods do not exist and neither does an afterlife"; well you get the idea.

[j]

That still doesn't mean a deathbed conversion wouldn't be enough, though.  Also, the Bible's pretty clear that works alone aren't enough, which still means people who haven't ever heard of Jesus or Christianity will not go to heaven.

This is true too, I think, except possibly the bolded.  Remaining within the umbrella of what is usually considered "Christianity", you could say that the deathbed conversion was an act of faith--or a "work"--itself, or that God's infinite mercy allows him to make exceptions based on individual circumstances, or a number of other "rationalizations".

I'm sorry, but that still doesn't seem right to me.  God is being inconsistent with his judgment in that instance.  Either people are condemned to Hell without Jesus or they aren't.  Otherwise we have to throw out that central aspect of Christian doctrine.

  God is not being inconsistent in this scenario.  He is adjusting for inconsistent circumstances.  An omnipotent god knows there are those who are never properly exposed to Jesus or his teachings before death.  A just god knows that it is not just for some to be judged differently than others.  The Christian God is said to be both omnipotent and just.  I don't buy what I'm arguing, but it's a hell of a lot more reasonable (not to mention more consistent with basic Christian theology) than a God who is powerless to level the cosmic playing field for his weak creations that he professes to love.

Now that brings up the notion of what constitutes being "properly exposed" (my words) to Jesus.  Does it apply to every person who has heard the name "Jesus" uttered, even in passing?  Or does it stretch to include (for example) the person who is nominally brought up a Christian but whose parents are terrible examples and cause him to leave the church forever without looking back?

-J

[Dr. SeaWolf]

You know the central doctrine of evangelical Christianity is that we are condemned to hell unless we are "born again" by accepting Jesus Christ as our savior, right?  This is because without being cleansed spiritually by Jesus' sacrifice, we are ALL too sinful to enter heaven.  If God is making even one exception to this rule, he is being inconsistent in his judgment, and is also being inconsistent with his holiness, since he is too holy to allow any sin into his presence (hence the need for Jesus' sacrificial atonement).  If someone has not accepted Jesus Christ and been "born again", they are still stained by sin, and thus shouldn't be able to even enter into God's presence.

I'm not saying I agree with any of this, I'm just regurgitating evangelical Christian doctrine as I was taught it growing up and in college.

[j]

While I think the bible is pretty clear about needing Jesus for salvation, the details are left quite vague.  Exactly how is one "born again", or "cleansed spiritually by Jesus' sacrifice"?  Is it possible that there could be more than one way that this can occur?  At the very least, there's no biblical support for the current evangelical practice of having some emotional experience, saying a quick prayer, "accepting Jesus into your heart" (whatever that means), and then bam, you're born again.

Do you not agree with me regarding the attributes of the Christian God as generally understood (perfectly omniscient, just, merciful, etc)?

-J

[Dr. SeaWolf]

Certainly, I just think the "perfectly just" part doesn't make sense if God is granting exceptions, that's all.  Under that logic, if someone lives a perfectly good life, they're better off never hearing about Jesus and Christianity so they get that special exception.

[j]

Yeah I understand that.  But I mean, using my own concept of "justice", I'd view it as unjust for God to give some people massive advantages while hanging others out to dry (which is essentially what happens if his rules mean and apply the way you've said they do).  Instead of saying some people get "special exceptions", I'd say that God would be fairly judging each individual--because each person is different and lives in different circumstances--rather than going "screw it" and trying to use a huge blanket of absolute cut-offs.

-J

[SnakeEyes]

If you overanalyze the Bible long enough you'll realize it's a concept album.

"Scenes from a Prophecy"  LOL

[Adami]

If you overanalyze the Bible long enough you'll realize it's a concept album.

"Scenes from a Prophecy"  LOL

Long wait, totally worth it.

[SnakeEyes]

LOL!

[Vivace]

Hell is a place without God. Christ as the Son of God came to fulfill the law. He didn't just open up heaven at that point like some coffee shop.   Jews also believe in Heaven. Christ also as a Divine Person as Christians believe make him one and the same as God (don't ask me to go into this as this is literally a 4 year degree you are asking me to explain) thus Christ was there from the beginning. Again the Gloria helps with this, "Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it was, is now and ever shall be". Thus explaining, everything already was, still is and will continue. Remember God can and never will change. God was, is and will continue to be the exact same being. Therefore this whole notion that people before Christ went to Hell is simply just another total misunderstanding.

[Vivace]

That's not evangelical doctrine as I understand it.  You can live a life of crime and accept Christ on your deathbed and get into heaven.  No "good deeds" are required for admission into heaven, as we're all sinful because of Adam, and Jesus' sacrifice "covers us" from God's judgment resulting from that sin.

A deathbed confession should be "real" when it comes to the confession. That is, if you truly ask for forgiveness for the life you led, that forgiveness is there. This becomes a concept not many people are willing to like because that means I can live a immoral life then seconds before I die go, "oops. forgive me". Believe me, it's never this easy. Heaven is simply a willingness to accept the light of God. We truly believe that God brings into heaven that which can only be good as God is that which is only good. There is a full proof of this from Thomas Aquinas if people want to druge through middle ages philosophy which is still just as good if not better than modern philosophy. this is not to say that those who are immoral but move towards the light get thrown into hell, only those who forgo the light.

[Philawallafox]

A deathbed confession will mean nothing without repentance. Repentance can't happen without God's grace.

Pre Jesus there were God's elect and there were not. Ante Jesus the same principal applied. I'm not sure I'll make a full post at the moment, but let's see how it goes.

There's a problem these days where there is an unbiblical idea that Salvation is the work of the individual. Salvation is a work Of God. Man inherited sin from Adam and passed it down hereditarily. Jesus overpowered sin and through his defeat of Sin, God see's those who were elect through Jesus after his defeat of sin so they lookk like they no longer have sin.

Because humanity inherited the original sin through Adam it encompassed their will. Thus every human's will is inclined to sin. If a human is inclined to sin by definition they cannot choose to save themself. This is what Paul, Augustine and Calvin all said. Therefore God by grace intervenes and chooses some to be saved. There were plenty of people saved in the OT. There were alot more who weren't but even some who weren't Israelites were saved. Can you think of any?

[Seventh Son]

A deathbed confession will mean nothing without repentance. Repentance can't happen without God's grace.

Pre Jesus there were God's elect and there were not. Ante Jesus the same principal applied. I'm not sure I'll make a full post at the moment, but let's see how it goes.

There's a problem these days where there is an unbiblical idea that Salvation is the work of the individual. Salvation is a work Of God. Man inherited sin from Adam and passed it down hereditarily. Jesus overpowered sin and through his defeat of Sin, God see's those who were elect through Jesus after his defeat of sin so they lookk like they no longer have sin.

Because humanity inherited the original sin through Adam it encompassed their will. Thus every human's will is inclined to sin. If a human is inclined to sin by definition they cannot choose to save themself. This is what Paul, Augustine and Calvin all said. Therefore God by grace intervenes and chooses some to be saved. There were plenty of people saved in the OT. There were alot more who weren't but even some who weren't Israelites were saved. Can you think of any?

These come from the words of a non-believer, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But I thought the major selling point of Christianity was "Anybody can be saved!" If only a select number are saved regardless (As your post seems to imply), then what is the point of Mr. Joe being a Christian only to find out that he was passed over? He might as well have done whatever he damn well pleased and had some fun in his life if he was going to go to hell anyway.

[bosk1]

Seventh Son, you are correct.  Philawallafox is wrong on that count.  He is correct in his point about salvation being the work of God, but his post completely falls apart after that (no wonder if he is relying on Augustine and Calvin, who both twisted Paul's writings beyond recognition).  Mankind in no way "inherited sin."  Each person individually chooses to sin and is not separated from God until he or she chooses to do so.  (e.g. "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." -Ezekiel 18:20)  The Bible teaches that while salvation is indeed the work of God, the work of man is to accept that salvation, and inidividually it is up to each and every person to decide whether to accept that salvation.  We each individually have the ability and the freedom to do so.

[Seventh Son]

I'm not well versed in Augustine but I had a hearty laugh when he mentioned Calvin. 

[bosk1]

Both had some really great ideas, but went way too far in promoting their own ideas about what they thought the Bible should say instead of looking at what it actually does say.

[j]

I'm not well versed in Augustine but I had a hearty laugh when he mentioned Calvin. 

So did I.

Paul, Augustine and Calvin

That's like saying Abraham Lincoln, the Dalai Lama, and Snooki.

-J

[Philawallafox]

I'm not well versed in Augustine but I had a hearty laugh when he mentioned Calvin. 

So did I.

Paul, Augustine and Calvin

That's like saying Abraham Lincoln, the Dalai Lama, and Snooki.

-J

well it's not really. I was demonstrating linearity. Calvin was one of the leading pastors of the Protestant Reformation. you'll find the Puritans in line with him along with John Whitefield, John Knox in scotland, The Westminster Divines, The first great awakening. The list goes on.

Calvin was in line with Augustine is known by Roman Catholics as the Doctor of Grace. If you look at his writings against the semi pelagians you'll see that he gives a progression of salvation by faith, faith from grace, grace by predestination.

In that work He mostly quotes Paul feel free to refute me but do it after actually reading his work. "On the Predestination of the saints" https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm. Paul uses strong language of election and Predestination. I don't know how you can say that that isn't what Paul teaches.

[j]

I didn't intend to dispute your claim, it just looked funny to see him mentioned in such company.   I've read Calvin, and of course he's arguably the most influential of the Protestant Reformers.  And in this case, I do agree that in some ways he echoes Paul's language when discussing "the elect", etc.

But the entire issue of predestination becomes a matter of semantics when viewed in light of an omniscient God.

-J

[Philawallafox]

I didn't intend to dispute your claim, it just looked funny to see him mentioned in such company.   I've read Calvin, and of course he's arguably the most influential of the Protestant Reformers.  And in this case, I do agree that in some ways he echoes Paul's language when discussing "the elect", etc.

But the entire issue of predestination becomes a matter of semantics when viewed in light of an omniscient God.

-J

i've never heard that before. Why do you say that?

[j]

Because of the topic we're running into the ground in the other thread.  God knowing who will follow him and who will not does not constitute "predestination".  Easily the dumbest, most pointless, and most unnecessarily convoluted thing Calvin wrote about.

-J

[Philawallafox]

Because of the topic we're running into the ground in the other thread.  God knowing who will follow him and who will not does not constitute "predestination".  Easily the dumbest, most pointless, and most unnecessarily convoluted thing Calvin wrote about.

-J

well yeah. But Calvin didn't write about that. Arminius did.

[j]

They both did.  Are you sure you've read Calvin?

-J

[Philawallafox]

They both did.  Are you sure you've read Calvin?

-J

I'm sure i haven't. however I've read Augustine and the Bible. I'll get to Calvin soon. In the mean time Calvin didn't teach that foreknowkedge is predestination.

Can I assume by inference that you've read Calvin?
Whether I can or not, I will. why don't you go and quote him to me where he says that foreknowledge is what the bible means when it says predestination. If you can prove it to me i'll give you a cookie.

[j]

  He doesn't say that, he's practically on the opposite end of the spectrum.  That was my point.

Calvin was a pretty crappy philosopher, among other things.  It's impossible to reconcile free will with the Calvinist notion of hardline predestination.

-J