« Defending Grace: A Protestant World Youth Day Initiative | Main | Is God Religious? »
The ‘Innocent’ Heathen?
By Duane | July 16, 2008
[Originally posted on 10th November 2006]
Do people go to hell because they never heard of Jesus?
Does God owe anyone a pardon?
Rabbi Weiss said:
“We believe that the almighty would have to be a very cruel, very unfeeling God that would make it necessary for so many millions of His children who are not in contact and who never have been in contact with anybody to spread the good news, to be damned eternally.”
Religion on the Line, KABC, March 13, 1988
But does anyone go to hell because they never heard or responded to the Gospel; because they never heard of Jesus?
Well in fact any innocent person that has never heard the Gospel will go straight to heaven. Why shouldn’t they? Innocent people don’t need the Gospel, just as those who are well don’t need a doctor.
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17)
God never punishes the innocent. But the question is, are there any innocent people? People are condemned for wrong behaviour, not wrong belief. People don’t go to hell because they’ve never heard of Jesus. They go to hell because they’ve broken God’s laws (Rev 20:12-15). You see, people die from disease, not for lack of a doctor; the doctor is the solution, not the problem. So too, Jesus is the solution, not the problem to our sin.
Our own legal system expects obedience. Any one violation of the law brings condemnation. This is a good thing. We don’t want a so-called “loving” Government that ignores crime.
God’s law is the same. It requires perfect obedience.
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (James 2:10)
“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)
Conclusion: God only punishes the guilty. No-one goes to hell because they never heard of Jesus.
This being said, does God owe anyone a pardon? In our legal system, is the judge obligated to offer a guilty man a pardon before sending him to prison? And if he does offer a pardon to one person, is he then obligated to offer a pardon to all? NO. A pardon is an act of grace, not an obligation. God of course is therefore quite justified in condemning every guilty person. If He did reach out to any guilty man, it would be an act of mercy and grace, not an obligation.
Further, God can justifiably show favour to whomever He wants. Note the parable offered by Jesus - Matthew 20:13-16.
He is not unjust if He chooses to forgive some and not others, Romans 9:14-16.
The mercy shown by God is an undeserved mercy.
D.A Carson writes:
We must always remember that the Bible does not present us with a God who chances upon neutral men and women and arbitrarily consigns some to heaven and some to hell. He takes guilty men and women, all of whom deserve His wrath, and in His great mercy and love He saves vast numbers of them. Had he saved only one, it would have been an act of grace; that He saves a vast host affirms still more unmistakably the uncharted reaches of that grace.
D.A Carson, How Long, O Lord? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 103.
Conclusion: God does not owe anyone a pardon. If He offers a pardon to some and hides His mercy from others, He is not unjust to punish those who are truly guilty.
God has not hidden himself from men. To the contrary, although God aggressively seeks guilty men, they run from Him.
For a further insight into this topic, refer to Greg Koukl’s ‘The Heathen and the unknown God’. You can purchase and download the mp3 from here. Or go to www.str.org and click on the link to the ‘Store’ at the top of the page.
Topics: Theology |
July 16th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Interesting topic, and one that I’ve pondered many times before. The Christian philosophy is one that says every man is a sinner, and every sinner deserves hell, so God is not unjust in allowing anyone to rot in hell. I understand that part.
Yet, this brings up another question. Why is God’s mercy limited? If the only way to be cleansed of your sins is through Jesus, then a truely merciful person would allow everyone an equal shot at accepting Jesus as their savior. Yet, this is clearly not the case. So, I ask you why? Why does God choose to be merciful to some (by say, allowing them to be born in a Christian country), yet others receive virtually no mercy?
I understand that, within the Christian framework, this doesn’t make God unjust. However, it does make him unmerciful to a great percentage of the population. Why do you think this is? And do you view this as a noble and good trait of an all-powerful being?
On a side note, do you think that babies that die prematurely are sent to hell? (perhaps these babies have yet to sin, but they are still marred by the “original sin”, are they not?)
July 18th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Thanks Fluke,
I’m grateful for the opportunity to talk about this a bit more because you’ve raised some commonly held concerns that many people throughout the centuries have had with Christianity in general and with God specifically.
I’m glad you qualified your questions with some follow up comments. That was quite helpful. I consider this to be one of the most important things you and I are going to talk about, so it’s important that you are transparent in your position if you want a meaningful conversation with me about this. Feel free to correct me, but here is how I understand your position inferred from your comments:
Assuming that trusting in Christ is the only way that sinners can be made right with God (and therefore saved from judgement because of their sins against God), everyone should get to hear about Christ and God shouldn’t punish people who don’t. It is even arguable that judgement is deserved if Christ is not made known to the one facing judgement. In fact, by not showing mercy to all by allowing all people to hear about Jesus, God himself is unjust. When it comes to an all-powerful being judging human beings, mercy should be the virtue on display, not justice. After all, it is not a noble or good trait of an all-powerful being to limit one’s mercy even if judgement is deserved.
Does that about sum it up?
Regarding your side note, my short answer is NO. But as that needs qualification and this is a meaty enough conversation as it is, I will happily return to that and your rather Roman Catholic view of original sin, after we are done talking about how sin, mercy and judgement applies to the adults.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:12 am
You almost got it. There’s one sentence you wrote that didn’t sum up my standpoint….it’s this one:
“In fact, by not showing mercy to all by allowing all people to hear about Jesus, God himself is unjust. ”
I specifically said in my previous post:
“I understand that, within the Christian framework, this DOES NOT make God UNJUST. However, it does make him unmerciful to a great percentage of the population.”
Unmerciful and Unjust have two different meanings, and I don’t want you to confuse them. For now, I’m agreeing with the Christian idea that God is just….but I’m questioning why he is not all-merciful.
My question is, why is God not completely merciful? Why is he merciful to some, and not to others?
Do you view God’s mercy as one of his virtues? And if so, do you think less of God for not being MORE merciful? If not, why not?
(I’d like to eventually get into why I think the arguement that God is “just” in punishing sinners is a flawed philosophy…..but let’s first discuss the issues of God’s limited mercy.)
July 18th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Perhaps I should further illustrate the difference between justness and mercy.
A court can decide on the death penalty for a criminal, and this punishment would be just for his crimes. Yet, a judge can show mercy and just give the criminal life, instead. However, if the judge did not show mercy, he would still be just in sentencing the prisoner to death.
So, see how justness and mercy are two separate things?
With God, we have a judge that shows mercy to some, and does not show mercy to others (seemingly randomly). God’s mercy is often trumpeted as one of his great virtues by Christians…..so I was wondering what your opinion was on why God’s mercy is limited….and if God would be more virtuous if he was more merciful?
July 18th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Fluke, this is why I asked for transparency before I begin this discussion. I already know the Christian position. But in the hope of meaningful dialogue I would prefer yours. Within YOUR framework, is it fair to say - as I suggested before - that God is unjust by not showing mercy to all? (notice, I am not using “just” and “mercy” as interchangeable terms)
Based on your bracketed comment above, it would appear that I was NOT misrepresenting your view in my earlier assessment at all, because you admit that a God who punishes sinners is a “flawed philosophy”.
I thank you for your qualification on justice and mercy. I believe this is a central part of this discussion, which I’ll begin once we have some clarity on your position.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Duane, when we’re talking about the merit of a philosophy, we must work within the framework of the philosophy.
This is your belief, so it doesn’t matter what I think of it right now. I’m trying to understand what YOU think of it….and I’m trying to see if what you think of it makes sense.
If you must know my stance…. I don’t think God was even just in creating a race of people that were destined to sin, and thus destined to be punished for sinning. But, that’s a whole other can of worms that I’d like to get into after I get your answer on the questions at hand.
Why do you think God’s mercy is limited?
Do you think God’s mercy is a virtue?
If so, do you think God would be more virtuous if he was more merciful?
You don’t need my views on things to answer these questions.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:49 am
That’s great Fluke. But it is a two way street. Your philosophy is just as relevant as mine in this discussion. You’re right, I don’t NEED to know your views to answer the questions, but it is helpful and congenial on your part. And I did make it clear at the outset that I won’t have the dicsussion unless certain things were out in the open.
Thanks for the clarification. And with that, we’ll move on and I will attempt an answer for your questions.
[gotta head out for a while though, so don't wait up...]
July 18th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Looking forward to this discussion. Duane and Fluke are two of my favorite internet characters!
July 19th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Yeah, but Fluke is cuter.
Nice to see you back Jake. I know you and Fluke have had plenty of discussion on myspace before and I have loved some of the posts you have done, so don’t hesitate to contribute here if you have something to add… that goes for everyone else too. It’s not the Duane and Fluke show.
[still pretty busy atm. might get on tonight with my thoughts]
July 19th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Hey Jake! I didn’t realize which Jake you were until just now.
Feel free to take a stab at the action here if you have the time. I enjoy hearing answers from different people concerning some of (what I consider) Christianity’s “problem areas”.
Duane, no rush. I’m a little busy atm, as well.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:47 am
I don’t want to leave these unanswered for too long, but as I don’t forsee an opportunity to answer these as well as I’d like in the next day or two here are my brief responses.
The most honest answer to this is I don’t know. I could speculate - I have heard/read compelling answers to this question over the last 2 years. But for now, thus far into the conversation, I’m happy with I don’t know.
I say this for my own personal reflection so it is rather rhetorical; Is mercy ever a vice? I can think of an example where this may depend on one’s perspective, but I digress for now…
Given that God is perfectly holy, just and good, I think I must say that God’s mercy, insofar as it has been discussed and especially in light of the alternative to Him not showing mercy at all to anyone, is a virtue.
To turn your next question around a little, this does not mean I think God is less virtuous if He never exercises mercy.
Not by necessity, no. God’s goodness, in fact all of His characteristics have not changed throughout eternity. So He can’t be more virtuous today than He was yesterday or will be tomorrow. If you had asked, “Do you think God would be perceived as more virtuous…” I can see how some may answer YES to that question, but it would depend in the first instance on your understanding of the nature and characteristics of God.
But I sense a snare here somewhere. So let’s hear it. [wince]
July 21st, 2008 at 5:01 am
Thanks for the answers. I actually think it may have been better that you didn’t have a lot of time, and thus was forced to be brief and to the point. These were relatively simple questions, after all.
Understandable. “I don’t know” is always a perfectly exceptable answer.
Gotcha. Let’s move on to the important part.
So, you seem to be saying that this is an unrealistic question, because God’s nature can never change. Did I read that correctly?
Well….I think you’re kind of dodging the question here. It’s like if I asked “would a one legged man run better if he had two legs?” and you answered with, “well, the nature of the man is that he’s always had and will always have one leg….so he can’t run better today than he could yesterday or tomorrow”. You seem to be missing the fact that this is a “what if” question. We’re not talking about “what is”, we’re pondering “what isn’t”.
Here you’ve kind of answered the question. Yet, you’ve deflected by saying “SOME may answer yes”, and not giving a personal answer. Then you went back to using your previous assertion that these people would only answer yes if they didn’t understand God’s unchanging nature.
So, maybe I’ll have more luck getting a better answer if I phrase the question a little differently….
WHAT IF God was more merciful? (we know that he can’t be, but WHAT IF he was?) …would YOU perceive him as more virtuous?
(I’d really like to get into a discussion about the flawed philosophy that God is just in punishing sinners. Would you want to discuss that here after we wrap up this current discussion?)
July 21st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
As I am sure you can appreciate, I am working within the framework. Men can run better with two legs. God on the other hand can’t improve on his perfectly good character.
Whatchoo talkin’ ’bout Willis… I gave my answer in the first instance?
I didn’t say he couldn’t be more merciful… did I? In answering your question I was trying to convey that being more merciful does not, by necessity, make him more virtuous. Have I misled you somewhere?
You can move on to the other topic if you’re done.
It is related to this discussion and should be interesting.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:53 am
So your answer to questions 3 (which was, do you think God would be more virtuous if he was more merciful?) was that God is already perfectly virtuous, so there’s no way he could become MORE virtuous.
I can understand that, yet why can we perceive of a way in which God could be more virtuous? If mercy is a virtuous trait, and God’s mercy is definitely limited, then why wouldn’t God showing more mercy make him more virtuous?
You said,
“being more merciful does not, by necessity, make him more virtuous.”
Yet you didn’t explain why this is.
Isn’t one’s virtue effected by one’s deeds?
Or is God exempt from this rule?
At the root of the problem is this question… how can God be perfectly virtuous if he is not perfectly merciful?
(I’ll start up the other discussion soon. I’ve got a deadline tomorrow…but I should be able to find some time.)
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 am
Hi, Duane. Been awhile since I’ve been in this neck of the woods. Glad to see you’re still here and engaging. I’d like to take a shot at this topic if I might.
In dicussing God’s mercy the two of you seem to have left out two important factors: God’s omniscience and mankind’s free will. Dealing with the later first, the hypothetical “heathen who’s never heard…” discussion always seems to avoid the real issue. The Heathen has never heard the name of Jesus and, therefore, hasn’t had the opportunity to accept or reject salvation. But the person asking the hypothetical has. So, as someone who has been given the chance to accept Jesus as savior, what was YOUR response? God highly values the gift of free will that he’s given us and is loathe to violate that most basic right to choose. So even among those who are offered mercy there are going to be some who do not recieve it through no fault of God’s.
Add to this the fact that God is all-knowing. Not only does he know everything that will ever happen, he knows everything that ever could possibly happen. He knows the exact circumstances under which any given person will accept his offer of mercy and he knows which people would not accept under any circumstances. What if, armed with such foreknowledge, God chooses not to offer mercy to the heathen who he knows beyond all doubt would not accept the offer anyway?
Now, for the sake of saving effort, I’m going to assume what would be the logical follow-up question: “If God knows ahead of time that someone is going to be condemned to hell isn’t it the merciful thing to not allow that person to be born in the first place?”
As I’ve already stated, God is loathe to violate our free will. Free will dictates that more than one option must exist from which we are given the opportunity to choose. If he allowed to be born only those people who would accept him, there would be only one option available by default. Free will would then be nullified as there would not be in existance anyone who might have decided against God.
Thank you.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:23 am
Royce, I want to eventually get into discussing freewill and the justification of God creating people who are damned to hell….but I first wanted to address the question of God’s limited mercy.
You see, it’s Duane’s opinion that people who have never heard of Jesus will go to hell, even if they would have accepted Jesus had they heard about him.
Thus, God showed them no mercy, by not even giving them a chance to cleanse themselves of sin.
My question has been, how can God be perfectly virtuous, if he’s not perfectly merciful?
Wouldn’t a truely perfectly virtuous God give everyone a fair chance at accepting or rejecting Christ before damning them to hell?
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:59 am
Good question and well framed.
Part of the point I was trying to make in my prior blogment was that, when discussing God’s point of view it is much more productive to examine actual events as opposed to hypothetical circumstances.
The clearest picture God has drawn of himself for us regarding his mercy is that of Jesus crucified. As he was hanging there on the cross he used on of his final breaths in this life to pray for the forgiveness of those whose actions put him there. In praying for God’s forgiveness on their behalf he was not just asking God to “turn the other cheek.” For, if their sins are forgiven, these people would actually qualify for eternity in heaven. I don’t think it’s possible to over-state this point: he wasn’t just asking that God not do them harm, he was asking that God do them an immeasurable good.
Personally, if I were in his shoes (framed for a crime I didn’t commit and in the midst of suffering a horribly painful execution) I can’t say that I would have had the quality of character to pray for the good of those who put me there. Jesus did. When given the chance to judge or show mercy he showed mercy.
Based on this picture of God’s forgiveness we have reason to believe that God is eager to be merciful. Extended to the hypothetical heathens, it is therefore reasonable that God will hold them responsible only for the extent that they responded to the ammount of Truth they were given (Jesus refered to himself as “the Way, the Truth and the Life). It is a biblical principle that from those who have been given much, much will be demanded and from those who have been given little, little will be demanded. God can be trusted to work out the details of how this will be accomplished.
Which brings us full-circle back to the main issue. As one who has had access to the good news of salvation through faith in Jesus you qualify as one of “those who have been given much”. What have you done with this privledge that has been denied to others?
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:15 am
Royce, I know you Christians are always eager to proselytize, but this discussion isn’t about me, personally. Yes, God has been merciful to me. I was born into a Christian country and I’m surrounded by the word of God. Yet, this discussion is about those that were born in countries where one can live and die and never hear about Jesus or the Christian God even once. That’s what we’re taking about here, so let’s try to stay on topic.
So, regarding the topic at hand, am I right in deducing that you disagree with Duane? You seem to think that a person who never hears about Jesus will not be sent to hell upon his death. Is this what you think?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:25 am
Fluke, point taken.
It seems that I may have been over-simplifying a highly complex concept. Heaven forbid I dishonor you with a sound-bite answer to so worthy a question. I’ll try to keep it short, though.
The bible says, in regard to the name of Jesus, that there is no other name under heaven by which a man may be saved. This is not an inclusionary statement (that only the name of Jesus saves) by an exclutionary statement (of all the names available “Jesus” is the only one that provides salvation).
As all reality was created by, through and for Christ, all of reality is a reflection of him. Since truth is that which corresponds to reality, Jesus is right in saying that he himself IS the Truth. Therefore, anything that is true is part and parcel of who Jesus is.
Everyone, whether hearing the name itself or not, has been exposed to truth. At a very minimum, everyone has a conscience; that still, small voice that goads us to shun evil and pursue good. If a person responds to the truth revealed by the light of conscience, that person has responded to truth and, by extension, Jesus. If that person ignores the voice of conscience and does evil he cannot then claim ignorance for he was given an option and chose otherwise. In such a way will every tongue be silenced on the day of judgment. You will be judged according to what you do with what you’ve been given.
I cannot, of course, speak for Duane (or any other Christian) but I am confident that he would agree with this.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
So you’re saying that a person whose never heard of Jesus or Christianity, and who follows another religion, yet lives a “good” life (as opposed to an evil one) will not be sent to hell when they die?
I’m not if sure Duane would agree with that.
What do you think, Duane?
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Gee, you leave this place for a day and look what happens
Royce! So glad to have you back. As I’ve been chatting with Fluke I have been thinking about you and asking God - rhetorically - where the heck is Royce? I think this is a great topic for you to be involved with. Thanks so much for coming back.
Being that so much has been said it will be hard to catch up and comment on everything. So I am picking a select few things for the sake of brevity.
I would’ve gotten around to this point eventually. In fact I already discussed exactly this point with Adam in private.
Actually, that’s a slight distortion of my view Fluke. I can’t disagree with the first part, but the second part is question-begging. I would have never said that.
There is nothing that Royce has said so far that I instinctively recoil over. But I will say that if a person does live a truly good life, loving God with all his heart mind soul and strength, then of course he will go to heaven. If you are perfectly good, you don’t Jesus. As I highlighted in the above post, On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” That’s pretty straight forward.
So as far as I can tell, I believe Royce and I actually agree. I won’t speculate on why I think you are missing this, but “being judged according to what you’ve been given”, is not at odds with my view that those apart from Jesus will go to hell. There is no necessary contradiction there - I am assuming that is the part where you think Royce and I part ways?
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Boy, it sure is difficult to pin down and understand you two’s beliefs.
I want to know a simple thing…. what do you think happens to people who have never heard about Jesus or Christianity when they die.
Duane, I was certain that it was your position that these people went to hell. But now you’ve confused this with the notion that “If you are perfectly good, you don’t need Jesus.”
Yet, this seems unrealistic, and thus a pointless amendment. After all, isn’t it a Christian belief that NO human is perfectly good?
BOTH Duane AND Royce, answer me this….
If someone never heard about Jesus and was not perfectly good, will they go to heaven or hell when they die?
Also, how can God be perfectly virtuous if he is not perfectly merciful?
If you’d answer as simply and directly as you can, I’d appreciate it immensely.
Thanks
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Hi, Duane. It’s good to be missed and better to be prayed for. I’m glad to know that I haven’t caused you to “recoil” LOL! I love the way you put that.
Fluke, I accept full responsibility for any and all misunderstandings I’ve led you into with my previous blogments. I’ve been looking desperately for a scripture that makes my point for me better than I can. I think I found it.
When Jesus is talking to Nicodemus (a teacher of old testement law) He says:
“This is the verdict: Light has come into the world but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” John3:19-21
Notice that right from the start Jesus is using judgement language. In here, though, he mentions nothing about what men do or do not know about God. Rather he focuses on man’s attitude toward God. For Jesus the problem is not one of limited access to God’s mercy; the problem is that men love sin and don’t seek his mercy if it means giving that sin up.
In Romans the apostle Paul writes concerning the Gentiles (heathens):
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law. they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness…” Romans 2:14-15
Basically, Paul is saying that everyone has been created with an innate knowledge of who God is and what he expects from us even if we have never seen a bible or heard the name of Jesus. Christians refer to this as “general revelation”.
So there really is nobody who could rightfully claim ignorance of God. How, then, can anyone be regarded as not having access to God’s mercy?
As for belonging to other religions, in order to gain access to God’s mercy you must be seeking the right God. Most of the worlds religions are not so much a sincere response to general revelation as they are an attempt to re-make God in an image that supports and justifies the sins men love. Such religions are self-centered and prideful; leading men to believe they are good enough to earn salvation by their deeds rather than being given salvation as the free gift of a kind and loving God. I do believe that someone who has never heard the name of Jesus can be saved by seeking the one true God. I do not believe that anyone has any hope for salvation who has heard, understood and rejected the good news of the gospel.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Fluke, I made that last post prior to reading yours.
Here it is directly:
It is possible for someone to neither live a perfect life nor ever hear the name of Jesus and yet go to heaven. Possible but not normative.
God is both perfectly virtuous and perfectly merciful. If he appears to you to be otherwise it can only be because you are reacting to erroneous and/or insufficient information. Please don’t be offended at this; as finite creatures we all have difficulty fully comprehending an infinite Creator.
I hope that was sufficient.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Ok, Royce. So you think everyone has an innate ability to “know” the real God, and thus be saved (even if they’ve never been taught about Christianity and don’t call their god by the name Jesus). Did I get that right?
Ok, so, Royce…..let’s assume this is true. Wouldn’t you agree that the chances are pretty damn slim that someone who lives in a country where he was taught another religion from birth and never heard about Jesus or Christianity would somehow stumble upon the “true” God by his own personal contemplation? His chances would certainly be CONSIDERABLY less than someone born smack dab in the middle of the American Bible Belt, wouldn’t you agree?
Doesn’t this make God’s mercy uneven? His mercy is practically non-existent in rural Africa, yet it abounds in suburban Arkansas.
Doesn’t this make God not perfectly merciful?
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Fluke, I’m going to be totally transparent with you. I wasn’t raised in the church. Throughout my life I’ve studied and practiced most of the major world religions (none of them deliver on what they promise). I even went into the fringe extremes. I was a practising warlock for many years. I have participated in ritual magic, necromany (communion with the dead) and demon worship; all the really bad stuff.
All along the way I told myself and others that I was pursuing truth. I can see now that I had no regard for truth at all. I was actually pursuing the things that I thought would allow me to re-make my world in a manner that more closely matched what I wanted it to be. I wasn’t seeking God so much as I was seeking the fulfillment of my own selfish desires.
In one part of the bible God says “you have eyes but don’t see, ears but don’t hear.” That was me. All during these dark times I listened to Christian talk radio for no less than 3 hours a day, 5 days a week (mainly to find a way to discredit christians). The truth was all around me but I had my fingers in my ears and my eyes squeezed shut.
In another part of the Old Testement God is speaking to one of his prophets regarding idolatry and saying how silly it is that people will take a piece of wood, cut it in half, throw one half in the fire to make dinner and carve the other half into a “god” that they bow down and worship. God found it amazing that they never once made the connection that the wood they worshiped was no different than the wood they burned. People do wierd and stupid things. This is true whether you live in the bible belt, darkest africa or anywhere else.
Jesus said that not everyone who calls him lord will be saved but only those who do the will of his Father. What is his will? It can be summed up in three words: share, forgive and believe. Share what you have with those who are in need. Forgive those who do you wrong whether or not they deserve it. Believe that God is good and that he will honor the promises he makes. If you don’t have access to his promises and all you can do is the first two then that is all you will be held accountable for.
These things can be done no matter where you live or under what circumstances. The only pre-requisite to doing God’s will is the humility to question your own motives. And I dare say that on that day there will be many from the bible belt who will be surprised by many from the jungles of Africa.
I stand by my earlier point: God’s mercy is sufficent, it’s mankinds’ response that is lacking.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
So, Royce……you’re now saying that those who don’t have access to Christian teachings need only to be sharing and forgiving, and that’ll be what they’re judged by when they die?
So this means that someone in Buddhist China or Islamic Africa or Hindu India has just as much of a chance to get into heaven as someone in Christian America?
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Hi Fluke, Duane, Royce, it’s been awhile
I would like add a couple verses, I am going to add the verses around the important verse, just for context sake.
John 10:14-17, specifically vs 16 and Romans 1:18-22 specifically vs 20
These are to go along with those that Royce added.
Fluke, here is what I believe, and the reason I believe what I do is according to what I have read in the Bible, so if someone can come up with a stronger argument, then I can and will change my mind on this.
From these scriptures, what I see is that God gives every single one of us a chance to see truth, there are no exceptions, and then of course we have the chance to act upon that truth, no matter how large, or how small that truth is. For example, the person who lives in the Bible belt and is given great truth, then as it says in spiderman, “With great power, comes great responsibility”, says it in the Bible too, but the reference to spiderman is fun
So we are held accountable according the truth that is given us. I can’t stress enough that according to the Bible all men are given the bread of truth, some only breadcrumbs and others whole loafs, but each is judged according to the amount of bread given them.
I think the reason why you’re not getting a very clear picture is because God judges the heart. There is no way for myself, Royce, Duane or anyone else to know how much truth has been given to each person, and how they responded to that truth.. there is just no way for any of us to know, so we can’t say whether they are saved or not. We can’t really know where in their relationship with God each person is either, in the beginning, a mature walk, or what… so we would be best to leave the salvation judging up to the one who provides that salvation. Thus the reason why your question is such a hard one to answer, We’re not the judge!
What we can know is that God is completely and fully just and merciful. I hear talk about perfect this and perfect that in the comments above, but you know what.. our view is so screwed up, would we see and know perfect love if it was in front of our face? what about justice or mercy as has been mentioned above? We can all agree on many aspects of each, but when it comes down to the fine details, Im just not sure we’re equipped for such things, but we can sure try. Where do we get our ideas of what a pure and perfect love, justice and mercy look like? The Christian would say from the Bible and that the Holy Spirit has written this on our hearts, but since we are not perfect, then our view can be distorted. The whole purpose of this paragraph is to say that just because something might not seem merciful to you or me, usually means we do not have the full picture and when we will have it, we will be in full agreement on the result.
I sure hope I didn’t make things more confusing
It’s just not a black and white type of discussion 
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:16 am
Yes, Fluke. I’m saying that anyone living in these areas has just as much opportunity to get into heaven. I’m not saying that anyone belonging to these various religions has such a ggod hope because many of the belief systems mentioned have doctrines contrary to God’s law (the one’s written on the heart).
Hindus, for example, believe in reincarnation and a have a view of karma which says that the suffering one experiences in this life serves as atonment for evil done in a previous life. Under this belief system, if I see a starving child standing on the street corner in Calcutta I am disinclined to give him food because I’ll be interferring with the clearing of his karmic debt.
One can make the argument that the Hindu was raised in this system of belief but at some point the individual himself must look into the face of human suffering and choose to harden his heart against it. This is no different from the Christian living in the bible belt who pulls up next to a homeless man begging for change and growls, “Get a job.” It is not the religion that matters but the individual’s obedience to God’s will.
Thank you, Rick. You said alot of the things I should have but didn’t. I also hadn’t yet worked in the cool Spiderman reference.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:33 am
Fluke, I’ve re-read some of the posts up to now and I can see the case you’re developing. I can also see that some of my responses have fed your fire, so to speak. You seem to be narrowing your argument down to two options: either salvation can be achieved without Jesus or God isn’t really all that merciful. The examples I’ve given were intended to show that everyone, regardless of where they live, has access to God and, by extension, God’s mercy. The fact yet remains that there is only one way to be saved. Salvation is achieved by God’s grace through faith on account of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross.
When I asked you what you had done with the truth that you’ve been given I was not proselytizing. I have neither the responsibility nor the power to make you believe anything. I was merely trying to make my original point.
All things are received according to the mode of the receiver. Paul said that all things are pure to those who are pure. These are two different ways of saying basically the same thing. If someone imagines God to be a punitive lawgiver, all that person will see are the rules and regulations. If someone believes God is uncaring and arbitrary, he will see injustice in everything. If someone is open to God’s infinite mercy, he will live a life filled with love, peace and joy. It is not God who changes but our attitude toward him.
I don’t believe I have any more to offer you on this subject. If you really want to understand the extent of God’s mercy toward mankind the only place to go for exhaustive answers is straight to the source. Ask God to show you and he will (if your desire to know is sincere).
Those who seek him will find him when they seek with all their heart.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:59 am
Thanks for the reply, Rick. You explained your position fairly well.
However, I’m still unsatisfied with your answers.
For instance, what are the chances that someone born and raised under another religion and in another country would somehow come to realize the “true” God’s “invisible attributes”?
Christian teachings make it pretty clear that the only way to cleanse yourself of your sins is through the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your savior. Yet, how could someone who has never even heard of Christianity, and who was raised under another religion, even come remotely close to stumbling upon an idea like “I must repent my sins to the one true creator of this world”? The likelihood of this happening seem immensely remote, at best. Yet, you want to make it seem just as likely as someone in the Bible belt following the true word of God.
You’ve suggested that these people who were not provided with Christian teachings will be judged by a different criteria. Yet, what type of criteria are we talking about here? Royce suggested that they will just be judged by their good deeds (like their ability to share and forgive), yet this seems inconsistent with other Christian teachings.
So far, it seems to me like you guys are trying to make up for God’s limited mercy by making excuses, because you know God must be all-virtuous….and having limited mercy does not make an all-virtuous God. People’s access to Jesus appears to be incredibly uneven….and thus you must find a way to make it appear “even”…..so everyone has a fair chance. But I must say….it looks like you’re trying to patch a leaky boat.
I feel like we’re reaching an end to this discussion, though. So I will probably be devoting my time to the discussion of God’s justness on Duane’s newest post. But I’d still like to hear a final word from you guys here.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Hpefully I can clear things up a bit.
Fluke,
I dont think God’s Mercy is limited. It’s available to everyone, even those is non-christian countries. You may think it’s limited due to the numbers responding to that mercy being much greater in the “Bible belt” compared to elsewhere, but it’s there for all just the same. Sure the voice promoting Christianity is loudest in the west but it is still there in the east. Missionaries have been visiting those countries for centuries. It’s not Christianities fault that those voices are ignored in those countries. Those voices are largely ignored in the ‘Bible belt” too you know.
I think what Royce was trying to say was that in the end everyone will be judged in relation to the amount of light they have been given, But everyone will still be found guilty. And the level of punishment will reflect this. In the same way those who are saved will get different levels of reward depending on what they have done with the amount of light they were given.
Essentially it comes down to this. All are lost without Jesus and are destined for hell. The “Bible belt” resident who rejects Jesus will be in th same boat as the eastern heathen who doesn’t seek the one true God.
The thing is that God always responds to anyone and everyone who seeks him. This can come in the form of a direct revelation or making info about Jesus available. This has happened and there are many examples of such revealing. I have heard of many muslims receiving personal revelation from God (in the heart of the middle east) and coming to know and believe in the Jesus of the Bible. I think JP Moreland has many such stories.
A couple of examples that I have are (From Don Richardsons Book ‘Eternity in their hearts’):
Ethiopia’s Gedeo people.
The Gedeo share a common belief in a benevolent being called Magano, omnipotent creator of all that is. Even though they sacrifice to the evil being Sheit’an, they do so because they do not enjoy close enough ties with Magano to be done with Sheit’an. One man prayed a simple prayer asking Magano to reveal himself to the Gedeo people. He was given a vision of two white-skinned strangers who would erect flimsy shiny-roofed structures underneath a large sycamore tree near Dilla, his home town. A voice told him these men would bring a message from Magano. Eight years passed until 1948 when Canadian missionaries fulfilled his vision. Thirty years later there were more that 200 churches among the Gedeo people.
The Wa.
From time to time, prophets of the true God, whom the Wa called Siyeh, arose to condemn head hunting and spirit appeasement….Siyeh, the true god, [would] send a long awaited ‘white brother with a copy of the lost book’
One morning Pu Chan saddled a Wa pony and told his diciples to follow it. It would lead them to the white brother that was prophesised. The pony led them over 200 miles of mountainous terrain before it stopped at the well of a mission compound in Kengtung. No one was around so they looked into the well itself and there was missionary William Marcus Young digging. The Youngs, with their Karen colleagues, eventually added ten thousand baptized Wa to the sixty thousand Lahu that they baptized in eastern Burma.
The simple conclusion that can be drawn from all this discussion is that;
1. God only punishes the guilty
2. God owes pardon to no one. If He offers pardon to some and hides His mercy from others, He is not unjust to punish the guilty.
3. God has not hidden Himself
4. Guilty men don’t seek God, they run from Him.
5. God continues to seek guilty men out of love.
When we face God….
1. The issue won’t be the heathen who never heard.
2. Instead, the question will be, “what about your sin? Did you allow Jesus to forgive you?
3. It’s a simple issue: Let Jesus pay for your crimes, or pay for them yourself.
On that last day every mouth will be closed, because we will see there is no fault with God. Teh fault is entirely with us.
And this is what scares me. It would have been so easy for me to ignore God and just keep on going.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Adam said:
I’m sorry, but this is just BS. Through-out the history of mankind, there has to have been millions, if not BILLIONS, of people who never once heard the Christian version of the word of God. Missionaries can’t travel everywhere, not can they speak to everyone, and tales of personal revelation are few and far between.
Not only do we have a huge number of people that never have access to Christian teachings, but we must also consider the billions more who are at a great disadvantage in accepting Christ because they were raised to believe that another religion is true. Sure, there are those who convert, but they are relatively few in comparison to the whole. Simply put, if you’re raised in a Christian household, there’s an amazingly good chance you’ll be Christian as well….yet, if you’re raised Buddhist or Muslim, there’s an amazingly good chance you’ll stay Buddhist or Muslim.
These are the fact that point toward an uneven amount of mercy, on God’s part. God has the power to give everyone an equal shot at accepting him, but he obviously has not done this. All of you have failed to provide a decent explanation on how God’s mercy actually is even and fairly distributed.
I was accepting of this idea from the beginning. Yet, there is a difference from being “just” and from being “virtuous”. You view God’s mercy as one of his virtues, so if his mercy is limited and unequal, then this must have an effect on God’s virtue.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Many parts of the world know nothing of your God. This only becomes increasingly true as you travel back in time.
How can you allow Jesus to forgive you if you don’t know who Jesus is?
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Sounds like you’re asking God to be a circus act who must perform in front of every person that ever existed in order to plead with them to believe? Since when does God have to provide this even and fairly distributed mercy to all?
The sad fact of the matter is that all those billions of people have rejected God. God’s laws are written on their hearts and consciences and they still walked in the darkness. If God offered pardon to just one person, or just white anglo-saxon protestants then that’s His business. He still has a legitimate transaction with everyone else who rejects Him, and payment is due.
Romans 9:14-16
He said to Moses “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”
You may not like it. You may not think that it’s fair. But that’s the way it is. Ignorance of the law is no defence, we see that all the time here on earth. If you travel to a foreign country and break a law, even a small insignificant law, they still have the authority to punish you wether you knew about it or not.
You can call God unfair if you will, but you cant call Him unjust. At best all you can complain about is that God is not condeming everyone to hell.
“Many parts of the world know nothing of God”? Come now you dont really believe that? God’s fingerprints everywhere in His creation. Every heathen beating a tom tom is beating that tom tom to someone. Our use of the term “Mother nature” indicates that we know that someone is responsible.
“We didn’t know”. God says “Yes you did, everytime you looked into the sky at the stars you knew, everytime you plucked fruit of the vine and were nurished by it you know and everytime you looked into the eyes of a child or a loved one, you knew.”
And when you know and then seek, God always responds as I stated before. You just seem to be hung up on the fact that all those billions of people who know, decided not to seek.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Wow, Adam….I don’t know where to start.
You seem to be arguing two arguments now.
Your first argument says that God doesn’t have to be equally merciful, so who cares.
Your second argument says God IS equally merciful, because everyone in the world should just find the Christian concept of God to be OH SO OBVIOUS!
Well, you’re wrong on both accounts.
You’re wrong on the first arguement, because the idea that God isn’t equally merciful is not “okay”….because mercy is a virtuous trait….and if God doesn’t at least give people a chance to be saved, then he’s not very virtuous.
You’re wrong on the second arguement, because the Christian concept of God is NOT OBVIOUS. People throughout the ages have looked at the sky, the stars, the fruit of the vine, and come up with COMPLETELY different gods to explain them. The VERY SPECIFIC Christian concept of one creator who created everything and gave his son to cleanse us of our sin is NOT something that instantly snaps into your mind when you look at the wonders of mother nature. This argument is just ridiculous.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:40 am
With all due respect, Fluke, You are decidedly wrong on that last point. Every ancient mythos has some “savior” account included in it; a god or otherwise divine creature who sacrifices itself to save mankind from destruction. The theme is so universal it even appears in modern secular entertainment (the Matrix trilogy being the most obvious one to come to mind). Christian themes are are found throughout the worlds’ religions. The only difference between Chistianity and everyone else is that our savior is the only one who actually showed up.
After intense study of the world religions it has long been my conclusion that the only way the one, true God can be missed is if you are intentionally ignoring him.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Fluke if you really do want to know what the Bible teaches, not what Christians teach, then I would suggest that you read the Bible. And once you’ve read it, once, twice, a couple more times, you will be able to discern between “Christians” who follow the Bible and “Christians” who are by name only, and spout off their opinion based on their own feeling, and not on what the Bible actually says. You’ll also have an amazing grasp on what true Christianity really is about.
According to the verse that I gave you in Romans, it doesn’t say “chance” from what I read, and from what I read it says “people” and it looks like it’s in the global sense.. so, everyone. Do you disagree? Do I know how that happens or what that looks like in practice? I sure don’t, but I can tell you how it looked like in my life, and each and every Christian all over the world can tell you how it looked like in their life. And those are the more defined examples, as for those that never became “Christians” or heard the good news about Jesus, God knows what he has done in their life and how they responded. I don’t see why you think we would know what that looks like? Im definitely not God and Im not trying to cop-out of an answer, but when it comes to salvation, like I said before.. it’s probably wise to leave those decisions up to the Savior.
We need to more concerned with the fruits of the spirit, which encompasses love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Those things are the evidences that God is working in you. Have you ever seen those characteristics in people other than Christians?
It’s a joke, but hopefully it makes the point that God works in and through all types of people, all over the world and all through time, are these things what saves you, well no.. but they are evidence that Christ is working in those people. And anyone that is allowing Christ to do work in them, is on the path towards having a relationship with God. Will that “realized” relationship come in their life time? some? probably, most? maybe… How can we know?
July 25th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I think you misunderstand me Fluke.
I am not arguing for God being unevenly merciful. I was asking you for where you got the notion that He has to be. It’s like your’e saying that God has to fit the bill that you determine is right. I just wanted to know your grounding for your view and where it come from? What abolute authority do you have that determines what mould God has to fit into.
The definition of mercy that I’m trying to convey to you is like say, God has placed a hamburger in every single persons hands around the world and its their choice wether to eat or not. And in some countries this failure to eat results in starvation.
And I wasn’t trying to say that stars etc convey a direct message of a Christian God. They just make a God obvious. And once you recognise the existance of a God, the next step is to find out about that God. Every other religion other than Christianity has their definition of God requiring some system of works where they have to earn or manipilate their way into heaven or whatever their final state is.
Given that everyone is born with this inborn nature to do wrong (through no individual fault of their own). It seems wrong that you should have to work to alleviate something you are not responsible for. “Why should I do all this work for something I didn’t start”. That’s why the Christian message of faith alone is the fairest solution to the problem.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Rick said:
I’ve read a decent chunk of the Bible, but I’d like to get around to reading more of it sometime. However, the thing I’ve come to find is that there is no such thing as “true Christianity” (or, at least, if there is, then it’s impossible to detect). You see, every Christian I talk to has a different “version” of Christianity. ….and this isn’t completely due to the fact that not everyone is perfectly “familiar” with their Bible…..much of it is actually because the Bible leads itself well to a wide variety of interpretations.
This is why I find it much more satisfying and interesting to discuss Biblical questions on a personal level. Of course, I don’t mind when Christian’s quote scripture, but I’m much more interested in what that particular piece of scripture means to that particular person, and how they think it applies to the world and the evidences we see around us.
As for the rest of your post,….I think it would be detectable if people from countries where Christianity was sparse were spontaneously coming to “know Christ” through their own benevolent behavior. This is something Christians would pounce all over, if it existed. Yet, the fact of the matter is, being joyful and peaceful and kind doesn’t bring with it the revelation that you need to repent your sins to the one true God. I just don’t think it works that way.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:22 am
I stated my arguement for this several times already in this discussion, but it’s a long discussion and you came in late, so maybe you didn’t read it. Anyway, here it is again:
According the Christian philosophy, God is just in sending humans to hell. Yet, God is merciful in providing a path to heaven for the damned. God’s mercy is viewed as one of his virtues (God is good for being merciful). Thus, when you come to realize God’s mercy is limited, we must consider the effect this has on God’s virtue.
The logical conclusion is that a God with limited mercy is a God with limited virtue. I understand that God is just in sending people to hell, yet “justness” and “virtuousness” are two different concepts.
We may deserve hell, but it’s God’s kindness that saves us from it. And if God doesn’t offer the same “kind gesture” to everyone, then how can we call God all-kind…or all-good?
Well, it’s my position that the “hamburger” hasn’t been given to everyone. Some people get a hamburger, some people get a tiny piece of a hamburger, some people get no hamburger at all.
If you grew up in Northern China, where Buddhism is the dominant religion, do you realistically think you’d have become a Christian? What if you grew up in an area where you never even heard about Christianity once for your entire life, do you honestly think you would somehow come to know Jesus?
July 25th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
[Apologies to Royce, whose comment has been in the moderation queue since yesterday morning; I only just now logged in to clear them out and some reason yours was stuck in there - its happened to Fluke before too.]
[See comment 36 above]
July 25th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I must admit … I have not read this entire discussion. (Haven’t been reading much, lately!) However, I think I bring a fresh pair of eyes to Fluke’s logic which, as far as I can see, is missing something in his following argument:
I summarise this argument as:
A) God’s Justness condemns people to Hell;
B) God’s Mercy (offered through Jesus Christ alone) allows people to avoid Hell;
C) God’s Mercy is a Virtue;
Therefore: God’s Mercy is limited, as is His Virtue
This doesn’t make sense as the conclusion doesn’t follow at all from the premises.
However, reading a bit further in his same post, and correct me if I’m wrong, Fluke, I think your logic should read as:
A) God’s Justness condemns all people to Hell;
B) God’s Mercy (offered through Jesus Christ alone) allows all people to avoid Hell should they accept it;
C) God’s Mercy is a Virtue;
D) Not all people know/hear of God’s Mercy (offered through Jesus Christ alone);
Therefore: God’s Mercy does not allow all people to avoid Hell because some people do not know of/hear about it in order to accept it; consequently, God’s Mercy (and Virtuousness) is limited only to those who know or and accept it
Please adjust the above accordingly if what I have surmised is different to what you mean. (My conclusion is too long winded for my liking … didn’t know how else to phrase it! Hopefully, it follows the premises, tho.)
July 25th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Thanks, Mathew.
You definitely summoned up my position, and probably organized it better than I have been.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
No, but if left to their own and on the same path for let’s say a 1000 years, would they come to that conclusion? You and I would not know the answer to that question, but God would/does. This is the way that I see it.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
From what I understand of Fluke’s argument Rick, he won’t like that solution much because that still means God is being ‘unjust’ to all the people who lived and didn’t hear the gospel during that 1000 years.
Fluke has no problem with retributive justice as far as I can tell. He has a problem with distributive justice. In other words he thinks that an all good God is obligated to distribute his mercy evenly. I think he’d have a problem with the parable in Matthew 20.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I was thinking of that parable earlier as well, Duane. However, in addressing Fluke’s objection, I’m not sure if it is all that relevant - for the landowner makes himself known in the same fashion to all who he hires. What Fluke might have an issue with in the parable is the sovereignty and generosity of the landowner - that it is the landowner’s choice to reward everyone equally, despite not everyone having done an equal share of ‘work’.
July 26th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Ok, Fluke …
I’m no Einstein when it comes to logic, but I’m beginning to realise the choice of words in a logical argument are important. Forgive me, but I was very conscious in how I worded the paraphrasing of your argument. And with the way that it is worded, there is one big assumption being made in premise D:
Can you see it? The premise assumes that people need to physically hear or learn about (know) Jesus and that this is an absolute requirement (ie. if you never hear the name of Jesus, you’ll end up in Hell. Period!); scripturally, however, this is not the case. While it is true that no one can know God except through Christ (Luke 10:22) and that there is no other name by whom we can be saved (Acts 4:12; John 14:6), the pagans/heathens/atheists do know God (Rom 2:1-20). The latter passage is one by which Christian theology states that no one is without excuse for their sin and must be judged by/through Jesus (v16).
I gotta cut this short (before I launch into an essay!) - consider these peeps of the Old Testament: Abraham, Moses and Elijah - all of whom did not become drinking buddies with Jesus, but were saved nonetheless (Matt 17:3; Luke 16:22-23 depict all three as being in heaven/redeemed). So it can be said that explicit knowledge of the incarnate Jesus is not necessary for salvation, while at the same time contending - without contradiction - that Jesus is the only means to salvation.
Just how God works the reaching out to those not (yet, if ever) exposed to Christianity is, quite frankly, God’s problem, not ours. Will not the Judge of all the earth do what is right? (Gen 18:25.)
July 26th, 2008 at 8:44 am
I understand your position Fluke. I just wanted to know how you came to that conclusion. How is it that your conclusions about Gods mercy are the way it should be. Why do you get to dictate the rules on what is right and what is wrong here? Who are you to say? Is a concensus among the athiest community enough authority?
Maybe my hamburger analogy wasnt that clear. Everybody has been given a hamburger but most just dont recognise it as food. Either willfully or through ignorance they simply dont eat it. The world around us is enough evidence for some kind of God, and the inquisitive nature of man should make us all investigate that God. Our consciences are enough to give us right and wrong principles so during the investigation we should be looking for the God who matches those principles. I believe the Christian God matches those principles.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Well, it’s my opinion. It’s my opinion that mercy is a virtuous trait…..and it doesn’t SEEM virtuous to me that God would offer mercy to some while denying it to others. It’s a personal judgment call. You very well might think it’s virtuous that God would deny mercy, yet I’d find this strange and I’d have to ask for a further explanation. However, I’m pretty sure you agree with me that denying mercy is not very virtuous….and that’s why you’re arguing that God actually doesn’t deny mercy.
I agree that the idea that “a god or gods” created the world was a pretty natural idea for humans to stumble upon before about 200 years ago. Yet, I don’t really understand what you mean by saying our innate sense of right and wrong should lead people to the Christian God through investigation.
Remember, we’re talking about people who have never heard of Christianity. How could they discover it through their innate sense of right and wrong? And why hasn’t any group of people in history suddenly become Christian without the aid of missionaries?
July 26th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Interesting angle. Yet, even though guys like Abraham and Moses may not have been “beer buddies” with Jesus, they were certainly on direct speaking terms with God. God chatted these two up numerous times. And God and Jesus are, like, the same dude, eh?
Yet, God doesn’t come down an yack just anyone’s ear off. So, how does someone in a country without Christianity come to know God when he’s in one of his silent moods?
Also, I’m curious to know what you think the of Catholic concept of The Limbo of the Patriarchs? The idea that dudes like Abraham and Moses didn’t go to heaven until Jesus came along and plucked them from heck.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I think this is a record number of comments for a post on this site. But perhaps we should wrap it up unless you guys think it’s going somewhere productive?
[If anyone has topics they'd like to raise for further discussion send me an email of your post and I will publish it on your behalf if it passes muster.]
Cheers.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Yeah might as well wrap it up, it seems like we’ve answered this question multiple of times:
but it keeps being asked.
And Fluke, on the whole limbo of patriarchs question.. Im not sure where they get that idea, definitely not from the Bible, so I guess that kind of answers the question.. I don’t think much of it at all
July 28th, 2008 at 5:09 am
If you’re interested in the answer to this question, check out this wiki link and scroll down to the section called Biblical sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_hell
July 28th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Yeah Rick,
Fluke, I guess you could say that most of us Christians on this blog are of the Protestant persuasion. So we disagree with Catholic theology. If your’e interested in the Catholic debate I posted a while back on the differences between Catholics and Protestants.
What I mean by our innate sence of right and wrong is that everyone has a conscience and we know when we do wrong, when we fall short of the ideal. And we feel guilty because of that. The examples of heathen who get revelation I gave earlier are evidence that a genuine seeking of God results in the Christian God being presented. There just happens to be very little genuine seeking. And those examples were not the result of missionaries finding you, but of you finding them.