I chanced upon a Roman Catholic blog written by a blogger who calls himself “ordinary guy” the other day because my curiosity got the better of me when I saw that he had written on the issue of purgatory. After a short exchange with him on the issue, “ordinary guy” decided to respond to my comment with a post where he asked if only Christians are saved, and I thought I’d respond with a post of my own as well.
Dear friend, while you mentioned that you “… do not base on ‘sola scriptura‘ alone”, let me first state that I’ll be basing all my points on Scripture, because it is the Word of God. For that matter, I think that many Roman Catholics misunderstand the concept of Sola Scriptura. While it primarily means “Scripture alone”, it also means that we take Scripture as the final authority on all issues pertaining to our faith. We do refer to other writings by men (I myself love the works of Charles Spurgeon), but we check their writings against Scripture, and reject them if they contradict Scripture.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
With that stated, I’ll quote you on a particular point in your post that I found disturbing and am responding to in this post.
The God that we believe in is a loving, merciful, friendly and welcoming God. A God who sent his Son Jesus to die on the Cross so as to re-establish a bridge-link for us back to the Father. Who did Jesus die for? Assuming if Jesus died only for those who become Christians, I personally think that Jesus is pretty selfish. What about those who have been living a holy and good life in other beliefs/religion? Should they be granted a place in heaven too? If God is pretty selfish in that sense to save only those who believe in Him, then how can we say that God is a God of love and a God for all when there is existence of selfishness?
What you have stated is universalism, i.e. that regardless of one’s religion or faith, Christ died for everyone and all are saved. It is not the message of the Gospel, but it is another gospel, and anyone who preaches such is to be anathema as advised by the Apostle Paul.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:8-9
The Bible, God’s Word, is very clear on who shall inherit eternal life and who shan’t.
It is only those who have the Son, i.e. believe in Christ Jesus, who shall inherit eternal life. Let’s examine the most well-known and perhaps the most-loved passage in the Bible, along with a few others, that very clearly deal with this issue.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16
And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
1 John 5:11-12
In addition to our Lord Jesus Christ’s proclamation that He is the way, the truth and the life which you said was allegorical, the Bible asserts that it is only through Christ Jesus that one can inherit eternal life.
For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
Romans 5:19
We are born with sin and into sin through the disobedience of one man, Adam, but through the obedience of another, our Lord Jesus Christ, we can be made righteous before God when we believe and put our trust in Him.
It is quite clear that it is only through belief in Christ Jesus that one has eternal life.
You asked about those who have lived holy and righteous lives in other religions and their eternal fate. I think the answer is quite plain (see 1 John 5:11-12 quoted above). In addition, I want to add that the Bible clearly teaches that no man is righteous no matter how holy their lives might appear to you and me on the surface. The darkness in that man’s heart can only be seen by God, and God only sees the heart of a man, not his outward demonstrations of righteousness.
All of us are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God.
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 3:23
as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.â€
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.â€
“The venom of asps is under their lips.â€
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.â€
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.â€
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.â€Romans 3:10-18
This, my friend, is the total depravity of man. And God tells us in no uncertain terms that we are so depraved that He considers our good deeds to be alike rags! Some Bible commentators have even gone so far as to say that the rags are alike used menstrual cloth or pads.
We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf,
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.Isaiah 64:6
There is therefore no justification before God with one’s good deeds. Living a “holy and righteous life” that is without Christ is a lost cause. There is only one way to reconciliation with God the Father — through His only begotten Son Jesus Christ!
If you have committed a crime against the State but tell the judge at your trial that you’ve been living a good and righteous life, would the judge be right to let you go? No, not unless you have paid the price for your transgression. Likewise, a good and righteous life will not save a person from the wrath of God, only those who believe on Jesus Christ and for whom He has paid the “fine” for.
Finally, how can you say that God is selfish when He has provided a way for us to be reconciled with Him and inherit eternal life? He did that by offering up His only begotten Son to suffer and die for our sins as the perfect sacrifice. Our Lord Jesus Christ took all the wrath of God upon Himself so that by believing in Him we who truly deserve that wrath can be found acceptable before a holy and just God. In fact, it pleased God to punish Christ Jesus on that cross for our sins (Isaiah 53:10) because our God is a just God and therefore transgressions against Him and His laws cannot go unpunished.
My friend, I hope that you see that what you have espoused is what the Apostle Paul termed “another gospel” and not the Gospel of Christ Jesus, and I pray that you search the Scriptures for yourself.
In conclusion, in response to your post, the final answer is this: that according to Scripture, which is God’s Word, only those who put their trust in Christ Jesus will be saved.
Tags: Charles Spurgeon, Gospel, Salvation, Sola Scriptura
-
Hey Sicarii,
I do face that eternal question / contradiction alot about Christ’s love as well.
Many ask, if God is so loving, why does he still condemn people to hell.
So just adding to your point, God is love. The very embodiment of it, that he sacrificed himself to save us.
My point is rooted in Romans 5:8
“And God proved his love for us in this, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
One thing we tend to not see in an all loving God, is also a God who is Justice, and is accountable to Himself first and formost.
Christ has already opened the way back to heaven in that we believe Christ died for our sins. But he has to serve out his own end of the covenent, and preserve holiness, in that whoever does not believe, is condemned to hell.
So who condemns? God? or our disobedience? So many times, we put the blame on God instead of ourselves.
I for one, am glad that my God is loving, and unwavering in his promises and nature from the Alpha till the Omega. And that is why i believe in a God who does not change, and can believe that what he tells us through the word can be taken for what it is. because he has not compromised, not even because of love.
Thanks for helping me revist this -)
- brian
-
This RC should read less of Vatican II and more of Constance, if he wants to know the historical position of Roman Catholicism towards those of other faiths. But anyway, after JPII and now Ratzlinger aka Benedict XVI, RCism is throwing away whatever appearance of orthodoxy it once possess. No wonder there are Sedevacantists around.
P.S.: Actually, the modern position of RCism is not universalism, but inclusivism.
-
Hell must be a pretty empty place with all these darned good people around.
I for one hope Genghis Khan made it to the pearly gates. I’ve always admired his flair for peaceful diplomacy, and it’s something I try to emulate in my own life.
-
Hi Isiah,
I read with interest on the exchanges between you and “ordinary guy”.
I, for some time and still is now, have been trying to accept that only by being a Christian, will one enter heaven. Not because I doubt the Scripture, but the more I think abt it, there are too many questions. I have been trying to accept it: only Christians are saved. I have been in toggling between only Christians are saved or not only Christian are saved.
Why?
1 part of me knows what is said in Scripture, and another part of me believe that the Scripture might not be so straight forward to the point (meaning sometimes cannot take the meaning literally) and also because I have 3 BIG questions:1) What about a baby or a child whose life is too short to even know God, and most probably not baptised?
2) Surely there are people who live in mountains or extremely remote places, eg. the eskimos
What if the Gospel did not reach there?3) There are countless cultures and background of people that Christianity seems alien to them. It is not easy for them to just simply accept the concept of Christianity ? Unless life changing events or certain circumstances cause them to be in contact with Christianity. How many actually experience it? Or should we say they are unlucky? We who are Christians are lucky chosen ones? If so, does that mean God does not want all humans to be saved?
Have you thought of the circumstances that made you a Christian? Will others encounter God like you do?We will never know if God will nudge all human subtly to become Christians. But I am aware that there are many who have not heard the Gospel. So these pple are not even given a chance to choose ?
The Bible is a guide book to the Lord’s way. It is not an answer book. If it is, Christians will be united in its understanding. Our life here on earth is to seek, learn and understand the will of God. It is a staging place to prepare us for the Kindom of God. We cannot fully understand God, but we must try and I believe we cannot be at fault to look for answers, to have doubts, because the Lord says “Seek and ye shall find”. The Bible gives us glimpse of the Truth, but it does not tell us all we need to know. It is through life experience that we will find the missing pieces.
-
Daniel,
Re. inclusivism,
“That some unevangelized men are saved, in the present life, by an extraordinary exercise of redeeming grace in Christ, has been the hope and belief of Christendom. It was the hope and belief of the elder Calvinists, as of the later.” William G. T. Shedd, 1888, Dogmatic Theology 2:706
Isn’t it shocking to see this from Shedd?
-
Aha! Daniel and friends … this is for the fun of discussion
I am busy working and cramming for exams, so this is what I can afford for now.
Re: Inclusivism
How do you understand this from the WCF?
“III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” Westminister Confession X:3 (1646)
Any takers?
Looks inclusivistic to me!
(PS: For definition of “inclusivism,” see http://www.theopedia.com/Inclusivism)
-
Hello, Brian:
Thank you for dropping by.
You said
Many ask, if God is so loving, why does he still condemn people to hell.
The straight answer is that those people condemned themselves because they are unrepentant, just as people know that they’ll go to jail because they have committed a crime. Who can they blame in this case but themselves?
You also said:
One thing we tend to not see in an all loving God, is also a God who is Justice
Amen to that. Though loving, our God is also just and holy. A just judge will not let the guilty go unpunished.
Keep walking with the Lord, brother.
God bless, and Shalom!
-
Daniel:
Hmm… I think you’re right to a certain degree that it is inclusivism, but I’d term it more as universalism as they apply that all religions pray to the same God through different means. At least that’s what I understand from a layman’s definition.
-
I also have these questions: Will Jews be saved ? Or Muslims ? They are not Christians. Jesus is not a Christian.
-
Martin:
Thank you for visiting and sharing.
You said:
I have been in toggling between only Christians are saved or not only Christian are saved.
Brother, I need to ask if you truly believe that the Scriptures is 100% God-breathed and is given to us for instruction, reproof and correction as recorded in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. If you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then one should not have doubts on that issue.
Sure, there are questions like those that I asked as well when I was younger, but I have learned that where the Bible is silent on an issue, it’s because God did not deem that we need to know His ways regarding that issue. And where the Bible is silent on a topic, we should also be silent on it and not speculate or even make wild guesses.
Isaiah 55:8-9 says “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
Read also the book of Job, where, starting at Job 38, God answers Job after incessant questions from the latter. We don’t and won’t know everything, but what God has given for me to know through His Word, I take as Truth.
And that Truth tells me that only those who have Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior will inherit eternal life. Like Paul, I “… decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
Be strong in your walk with the Lord and trust in Him only, brother.
God bless, and Shalom!
-
Martin:
You asked:
I also have these questions: Will Jews be saved ? Or Muslims ? They are not Christians. Jesus is not a Christian.
What does the Bible say, brother?
No, they won’t, unless they repent and put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. The Jews’ heritage will not save them, while Muslims only regard Jesus Christ as a prophet.
Of course Jesus is not a Christian. The term “Christian” was only coined in Antioch to denote those who are disciples of Christ (Acts 11).
-
Isaiah,
The Bible is the Truth, but there is truth behind truth. The Bible is ambiguous, as seen from the debate between scholars throughout history. I will continue my search for a reasonable answer so that I may accept that is what the Scripture really meant. ‘Cause I believe God wants us to seek answers. I am unable to accept it now, cause we are instill with something called conscience. And my conscience is at war within. God gives human conscience for a reason. The Bible has answers but it also don’t have answers. What I mean is, it is like a scratch n win. You need to uncover it. So if the Bible is ambiguous, it cannot be interpreted in a straight forward way.
“To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.”
-
Martin:
You said:
The Bible is ambiguous, as seen from the debate between scholars throughout history. I will continue my search for a reasonable answer so that I may accept that is what the Scripture really meant.
I hope you don’t mind me saying this, but it seems like you are trying to fit God’s Word into *your* own theology.
It’s dangerous, brother, very dangerous! That’s what the Emergents are doing and that’s what prosperity gospel teachers do as well. In the process of doing so, you will probably do the same as what the devil does best, i.e. twist Scripture to suit your own needs.
You also said:
And my conscience is at war within. God gives human conscience for a reason.
That’s not our conscience. Conscience is what God has given us with His laws wired into our beings that we know that we have done wrong even if not taught about it when we lie, steal or murder. You are struggling with your flesh and what it has made truth in your mind, perhaps, might I be so bold to add, that it has also subscribed to humanist ideals.
-
Martin:
I’d like to add that the Bible is very, very clear on what we need to do to inherit eternal life. The verses are totally straightforward and contain no ambiguity. There’s no “you can try this” or “perhaps even that”. It’s plain, simple and straightforward.
While it’s true that there are some disagreements, Protestant congregations all agree on the primary tenets of salvation and the disputes mostly center on the non-essentials, e.g. full immersion or sprinkling for baptism.
-
Hello Isaiah,
I would like to recall the very first posting you made and highlight a few points which I will elucidate in a moment.
You quoted:
“‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.’ (John 3:16)
And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:11-12)
In addition to our Lord Jesus Christ’s proclamation that He is the way, the truth and the life which you said was allegorical, the Bible asserts that it is only through Christ Jesus that one can inherit eternal life.
‘For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.’ (Romans 5:19)
We are born with sin and into sin through the disobedience of one man, Adam, but through the obedience of another, our Lord Jesus Christ, we can be made righteous before God when we believe and put our trust in Him.”
End quote.
Nothing wrong there. Sounds kosher. I bring this up again in juxtaposition with the questions raised by Martin regarding what has mistakenly been termed ‘universalism’ by one and more to the mark, ‘inclusivism’, by another.
Your earlier quotes expressed your beliefs very clearly when you say “It is quite clear that it is only through belief in Christ Jesus that one has eternal life.”
Absolutely right. But here it is that I must draw out certain distinctions.
What is belief? And for that matter, what is faith?
In your replies to Martin, you pinned the validity of your replies upon having faith and believing in Christ, but this is much more nuanced than it seems at first glance.In the Greek (koine), what we call faith in English is derived from the present indicative active form of the verb ‘pisteuo’ (in English transliteration), which is more akin to ‘faithing’. It is an active continuous process, not a static possession one can come into inheritance and leave it at that. I would even be right to say that the very word connotes ‘relationship’.
Because faith is as such, it is not merely intellectual assent, something static that remains in the head, like a mathematical sum. It must also be rooted in the heart, and it must flow out through your hands - in action. Faith encapsulates and is expressed and is experienced in the whole person: the Head, the Heart, and the Hand.
It is here that in recognising that there are so many levels in which one can be ‘faithing’ that your replies to Martin fall short of answering his queries in any justifiable manner.
What of the poor Eskimo who crosses the Bering straits with every season in search of food and who has never had any contact with any missionary? Supposing he recognises a supreme power, a being that remains unknown to him. He adheres to the meagre traditions that have come down to him and he lives as honourably as he can by the norms of his culture and tribe, for he knows no other. In his heart, he is at peace and at oneness with the unknown supreme being and because of this, his life is lived according to this knowledge and relationship. What would be lacking to make this picture congruent to your earlier quotes would be faith in Christ, but how can he, since he has absolutely no way of knowing him. Yet, he has a relationship with his unknown God and those around him. Will he be saved?
What of Christians who confess their beliefs obediently on Sunday but have no relationship with God and besmear the name ‘Christian’ through their very word and action? Will they be saved?
It is comforting to fall back upon those quotes you made at the beginning but that simply does not address the questions arising from reality, logic, and conscience.
The bible is truly the word of God, the Good News, and rightly so. But it was written by those inspired by the Spirit, no doubt, but written nonetheless in human language and idiom, which is anything but perfect. One must understand the context and meaning of every verse, which is what biblical theology is all about, but that is far from an empirical science.
To reduce everything to what you find in Scripture, or worse yet, to complacently find and fall back upon ready made answers put into the mouths (or ink strokes) of the evangelists is very questionable. Unfortunately, that is precisely the impression I get in surveying your replies to Martin. There has been no attempt to address his points 1, 2, and 3 in any way, yet it is precisely here that such attempts are needed. Where does Scripture address any of these points?
Your reply to this is:
“…but I have learned that where the Bible is silent on an issue, it’s because God did not deem that we need to know His ways regarding that issue. And where the Bible is silent on a topic, we should also be silent on it and not speculate or even make wild guesses.”
Is this not a circular argument? You quote your namesake to reinforce this but this is hardly an attempt at resolving the issue. Worse, it smacks of an implicit form of idolatry rampant amongst many Protestants today. It is almost as if Scripture were the be all and end all of all controversy. A sort of encylopedic manual that one can refer to for the answers to everything.
In your own words, “it seems like you are trying to fit God’s Word into *your* own theology”.
To brush aside those questions 1 to 3 by Martin might be the easiest thing to do. But ask yourself, how does what you’ve been taught square with a loving God who invites all to enter into a relationship with him - a relationship that can be entered upon at so many different levels in the human person? How can anyone get to say that someone is saved and someone else isn’t? Last time I checked, I’m not God.
Far from being offensive, my intention is purely to spur you, Isaiah, to come to a deeper understanding, and perhaps if this is to be found outside the circles of your denomination and in the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church, I urge you to explore the questions raised by Martin in these circles and to leave any biases at the door.
pax et bonum
-
Haha … Isaiah,
I’m working AND studying(mugging), so I’m not only “lonely,” but also BORED 8-} :-B :-#
-
Ha ha, Vincent. Then perhaps I can bother you with some questions I’ve always wanted to ask you.
-
LOL! That’s the second question. I read something on your blog about your relationship with the B-P Church. Most of my Christian life from college on was spent at Life B-P, and I’m thinking of going back to one, specifically Pandan Calvary, so I thought I might ask you about what happened during those years when I was absent.
-
Sure, Isaiah. If it’s about my life in the BP church, feel free to email me (I wouldn’t want to talk about this in a public domain). :-c
God bless,
Vincent -
Yep, I totally understand, I’d have emailed you earlier but I didn’t want to be labeled spam. o:-)
-
Vincent:
With regards to the WCF article, I interpret that to mean that the Westminster divines admit that it is not necessary that an elect person (Invisible Church) must be part of the Visible Church to be saved. With regards to Shedd, I would like to read the context before jumping to conclusions over what he has written. After all, the Neo-Amyraldians like Tony Byrne, David Ponter et al just love to rip passages out of context and read their modern concepts anachronistically into such passages (just like what RC apologists do to the writings of the church fathers), so I think looking at the context would be certainly most helpful. =)
-
Eh…. for the WCF, my previous reply was regarding the first part on the elect infants. With regards to the second part, perhaps they have in mind those mentally incapable of hearing and comprehending the Gospel? Certainly it cannot be normal unregenerate sinners because the WCF does state the belief of salvation through Christ alone, and apart from Christ there is no salvation.
-
To all:
Read Rom. 1:18-23 for the reason why all Man regardless of whether they hear the Gospel or not, whether they are born in the “wrong culture” or not, deserve to go to hell. You can look up Rom. 2 also, but make sure you follow Paul’s line of argument instead of playing the fallacy of proof-text (ie no usage of Rom. 2:6 without reading it in context)
-
Dear Daniel and friends,
I know what you mean.
But isn’t the essence of “incluvism” the possibility of salvation apart from the external call of the gospel (including infants and the mentally “disabled”)?
Steve Camp has stated the question clearly here:
http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/how-wide-is-narrow-roadthe-gospel-of.html
That is why I said it looks inclusivistic (WCF 10:3).
Ron Nash likewise thinks that infant salvation is too simplistic a view, and not derived from scripture. The scripture seems to be silent on this (infants and mentally disabled).
I have wanted to stimulate more thinking into this matter.
PS: I’m working most nights; I’m sorry if you cannot get me for the time being. Will catch up with you when I have time to breathe
)Yours in Christ,
Vincent -
Please see the definition of Inclusivism again. Thanks.
http://www.theopedia.com/Inclusivism
“Inclusivism posits that even though the work of Christ is the only means of salvation, it does not follow that explicit knowledge of Christ is necessary in order for one to be saved. In contrast to pluralism, inclusivism agrees with exclusivism in affirming the particularity of salvation in Jesus Christ. But unlike exclusivism, inclusivism holds that an implicit faith response to general revelation can be salvific. God expects from man a response proportional to the light given. Saving faith is not characterized so much by its cognitive content as it is by its reverent quality.” - Ken Keathley
So the key issue for discussion is this, “IS explicit knowledge of Christ and His Gospel necessary for salvation for ALL?”
-
A very interesting question for you, dear friends.
If all babies prior to the (mysterious) “age of accountability” are saved when they die, isn’t it true that they are ELECT? So if we take any baby and murder him/her, that baby goes straight to heaven, yes?
But if all babies are elect, then isn’t it true that ALL HUMANS ARE ELECT, since all of us (elect and allegedly “reprobates”) were babies once?
So how can a “reprobate” adult be “elect” when he was a child/baby, and becomes a reprobate after the age of accountability? Does he get un-elected? LOL! :-??
-
Isaiah:
nay, I am not an expert in the WCF, just that I have read it before with the (historic) Presbyterian worldview.
-
Vincent:
I think the WCF is not saying that ALL babies and ALL intellectually disabled people without exception would go to heaven, or that ALL babies are elect either. Rather, they are saying that ALL in those groups which are elect would be saved (and therefore conversely ALL in those groups which are reprobate will not be saved either). So no, not all babies are elect, but whether there are any babies in hell is not for us to know.
I guess with regards to the idea of explicit knowledge vs. implicit knowledge, why not posit instead the dichotomy of explicit profession and implicit profession? Would that be better? (I am just throwing out a thought; this may not be what I believe)
-
Yes, Daniel. I don’t think the wording in the WCF is specific enough. I wasn’t referring to the WCF when I discussed “infant salvation.”
But isn’t that what many (Reformed and Unreformed Christians) believe? I remember asking a couple of Reformed ministers in Singapore about this, and they unanimously agreed that ALL infants are saved.
In Keathley’s definition of inclusivism, I think the “explicit knowledge” part refers to supernatural revelation (cf mere natural revelation). So the dichotomy was created by Keathley
. And rightly so, as the debate between exclusivists and inclusivists includes the question as to whether natural revelation apart from special revelation is sufficient for some.But anyway, the question remains, “Is explicit knowledge and/or profession of Christ and His Gospel necessary for salvation for ALL?” [presuming that “explicit profession” means an outward public profession of faith in Christ (?).]
What is “implicit profession?” Don’t get you here …
-
Vincent, ok, maybe that’s the wrong word, perhaps it should be “implicit confession”. That is to say people who have true faith in Christ which is not outwardly expressed in any form because of various reasons (ie incapable of doing so)?
-
Isaiah,
An even more condemning passage for those who do not believe is in the verses following John 3:16. 17 “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”I don’t think there is any “hidden truth” or “truth behind the truth” to Jesus’ words here. If a person believes in the Lord Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, they are saved, they will go to Heaven. Hoever, as long as one does not believe in the Son, they are condemned already.
As far as someone doing “good things” in “their own beliefs”–that person is lost. Man is a hopelessly depraved creature. There is nothing man can do to make himself acceptable in the eyes of God. As long as he lives, he will be under the curse of Adam’s sin, and will always be in need of Christ’s rightwousness in order to be allowed into the kingdom of God.
I would echo Daniel’s use of Romans 1. When that person looks at creation, and realizes that there is indeed an all-powerful God, they have no excuse when they stand before Him. They will try and make themselves perfect, and will fail miserably.
Now, will God condemn that person even though they do not hear the name of Jesus? Yes. Is there a difference between the person in the jungle who never hears the name of Jesus and the person in America who never hears the name of Jesus? (and there are more of the latter than we would like to admit.)
After all, why did Jesus command us to go tell the gosepl? Why didn’t Jesus just say, “You will come across people who will worship a god named Allah. Don’t worry about them, they’re OK.” This is why–because apart from a life-long, all-consuming life-changing faith in Jesus Christ, people will perish in their sins and be condemned to Hell.
-
Thank you, my good brother Four* Pointer. You’ve put it across very well and really clearly, much better than I’d have been able to!
I still don’t understand how people can choose to explain away those straightforward pronouncements by our Lord Jesus Christ on salvation as being allegorical or, worse yet, out of context.
It saddens and boggles my mind at the same time that there are men who willingly suppress the truth so that they might control others.
At the same time, there are those who would choose to trust man-made traditions rather than Scripture all because the men who push those traditions say they are the true apostolic church, when some reading up would expose those claims to be unsubstantiated and false.
-
Sometimes, you’ve got to wonder what Jesus was all about when He sent us on the Great Commission. After all, if all good people get to heaven without the need to hear the Good News that Jesus died to save them from their sins, investing time, blood, sweat and tears to mission work just don’t make any sense. 8-|
Also, instead of grappling whether babies get to heaven - isn’t that the prerogative of God Himself? Knowing whether they do or not doesn’t add or take away our salvation, yet bandwidth is wasted to speculate about this. Like you’ve said, Isaiah, “…but I have learned that where the Bible is silent on an issue, it’s because God did not deem that we need to know His ways regarding that issue. And where the Bible is silent on a topic, we should also be silent on it and not speculate or even make wild guesses.” Very true.
As to the question about babies, it certainly appears that some people have acted on behalf of God to judge whether they get to heaven or not. As for me, I’d say I don’t know the answer, and it’s more important not being complacent even if all babies get to heaven, but I certainly pray for my kids, and tell my 2-year-old about Jesus and bring both her brother and herself to worship and understand who Jesus is.
-
I used to believe that all babies go to heaven, but thinking about it, isn’t it written that we were formed with iniquity in our mothers’ wombs? Doesn’t that mean that we are born with, and into, sin?
Therein lies the conundrum, doesn’t it?
Moreover, if we say that babies or unborn children have no sin, then when do they become ’sinful’? After 24 hours? 48 hours? Or on the 8th day when Jews are instructed to circumcise male offspring? Maybe there’s some commentary on this from the theologians, but I think I might have missed them completely.
Anyhow, it’s a question that we can probably ask God about when we are taken home, but for now, I’m not going to speculate because I don’t know the answer at all.
For those with children like yourself, I agree with you that bringing them up in a Christian environment while praying for their salvation is about the best thing we can do.
-
Following up on my previous comments on the above subject. I prayed for the Truth and direction from God as I am confused. He has answered my prayer. I found the answer in a moldy insignificant little book which I never knew is in my possession. I have scanned a few chapters of the book and compiled it into PDF format. I don’t have to say much. Perhaps those who are interested can read it, God may have a message for you.
http://www.box.net/shared/a6v3mzx1c0
Such an extraordinary writer makes you want to know more about him.
http://www.jesuit.org.sg/html/choices/vocation.stories/vocation.stories.paultan.html -
No worries, Martin. Your original comment was set aside automatically by the system as it has 2 or more links in it. I have since approved it.
BTW, why did you choose to read a book written by a man instead of searching GOD’S WORD, the BIBLE? A cursory read of one chapter — that on whether non-Christians are saved — already shows up numerous holes in his argument and several verses quoted out of context even though he himself says that one must read the Bible in context…
-
Well,
Have you fully read the document ? OR just scanned through 1 chapter ?
Can I invite you to read the doc in whole ?“BTW, why did you choose to read a book written by a man instead of searching GOD’S WORD, the BIBLE?”
What do you think?
-
Can we really interpret the BIBLE correctly and un-biasly, not based on prejudices, our family or social background, religious background and influence from others that conditioned our thinking ? Can we be so absolutely sure we understand the BIBLE in its totality? As the author mention, no one (except God) has the whole Truth.
OR are you claiming only you REALLY understand what the Bible is really saying ?
That’s why we must have an open mind to reasoning. Didn’t we all read a book or discuss or learn with/from someone for more knowledge ? WHO can claim that he doesn’t need to learn from others ?
“A cursory read of one chapter — that on whether non-Christians are saved — already shows up numerous holes in his argument and several verses quoted out of context even though he himself says that one must read the Bible in context…”
I think you miss the point here. Did he not compare the contradictory texts in the Bible ? Did he not show what the situation of that time when explaining a verse ?
We cannot allow our arrogance to get hold of us. We need theologians to uncover the message in the Bible, same as we allow doctors to treat the sick.
-
Dear Vincent,
Regarding the issue of WCF 10:3 “Elect infants…”, these are my 2 pence…
I believe that when the WCF was written in England in 1647, England was a “Christian/Protestant” country. Everyone was “elect” unless proven otherwise. At that time, the number of babies dying at infancy were high. This doctrine (WCF 10:3) brought great comfort to the grieving parents when it happen to their family.
On a side issue, you can see the great relieve and thanksgiving a women gave to God after surviving through child-birth - reflected in the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer on the chapter “The Churching of Women - The Thanksgiving of Women after Child-Birth”.
It may be of interest to some that the older Baptist documents also follow this line, until quite late in their history where they dropped the word “elect” e.g. Spurgeon. I see the wisdom in that since Baptists do not baptise their infants, the inclusion of the word “elect” may cause a stumbling block to a Baptist family who have lost their infant.
Apart from the semantic issue, some would argue (both for/against) that another reason for dropping the word “Elect” is due to the high number abortions carried out in recent years. Personally, I trust that the souls of any dying infants would be with the Lord.
Just some thoughts.
Sincerely,
Jenson -
Thanks Jenson for your input.
“Personally, I trust that the souls of any dying infants would be with the Lord.”
Why so? :-??
The view is exegetically weak, but I wouldn’t deny that it is comforting for any parent to believe that their infant (Ro 3:23) is in heaven. Where in the Bible does it say that all dead infants are elect?
If a mother aborts her child, the infant goes to be with the Lord. That’s truly an assurance of salvation. If the child grows up and denies the Lord, isn’t it better for the body to be killed in infancy than for the soul to be lost as an adult? (Mk 8:37)
-
Martin,
I haven’t had time to read the document in full as yet, but when I have finished, I might do a post on it.
That said, let me answer your question of whether we ourselves can interpret the Bible correctly or if we have to rely on theologians and leaders to help us do so.
The fact is we can interpret the Bible for ourselves correctly if we are led by the Holy Spirit. John 16:13-14 tells us that Jesus said:
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Who has the Holy Spirit? Those who are born again, which includes every true Christian, for that is the promise given of God.
Yes, we can have an open mind to reasoning, but the reasoning itself must be Biblical! And even if someone comes along to present another view of a verse, we must be diligent to seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance in guiding us to His truth.
Many times in my Christian walk, I have had the Holy Spirit teach me new things that I have never realized. The Bible is such a treasure trove for me because the more I read it, the more I am taught. Sometimes it amazes me that verses that we quote and take for granted have a wonderful teaching behind it that we ourselves do not realize, but that the Holy Spirit guides us into understanding.
I’ll give you another example: my wife, who was a Roman Catholic and had never read the Bible in its entirety before, has just done so a couple of months ago. There was no priming from me, but we let the Holy Spirit work in her. Other than a few things that we discussed, she totally understood the Bible and what God says! In fact, she has been given discernment that might be rare for a new believer (I might be wrong here) to be able to tell the half-truths and lies apart from what God really says in His Word.
So, Martin, we do not need theologians or the magisterium to help us interpret the Bible. If one is a born-again Christian, the Holy Spirit dwells in you and guides the believer unto all God’s truths.
In closing, I’d like to say that pertaining to the issue of salvation, Jesus’ words are direct and true and need no other interpretation either in light of historical or societal contexts: He alone is THE way, THE truth, and THE light, and no one goes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). In fact, I’d say that it is so clear that any non-believer coming across this verse alone will easily deduce that Christ Jesus is saying that He alone offers salvation.
-
Hi Vincent,
“The view is exegetically weak…”
I would say that the view is non-existent, apart from the sad incident between David and Bathsheba - leading to the death of their baby.“But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” 2 Samuel 12:23.
Was David referring to the grave? Or Heaven? Who knows…I am not in the position to judge the secret workings of the Spirit, so I do not have the answer to your questions. Sorry…
A very good friend of mine (we were ushers at each other’s weddings) lost his first born son last year, and at the funeral, I heard a sermon preached concerning the death of infants - who would be with the Lord. The couple were greatly comforted.
As a father who witnessed the birth of his 3 daughters, I can say that it was an act of mercy that they survived, and so did my wife.
Sincerely,
Jenson
48 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://wordnverse.com/2008/05/06/response-to-a-roman-catholic/trackback/