Other World Religons

[zak89]

When I was a kid, I heard this. I believed it and said it as an adult. But I don't think it is true now. First of all, it isn't in the bible.

Hmm... the reference passage (Matthew 24:14) seems to invalidate the idea that it isn't in the Bible.

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

So there's at least superficial evidence that all will be given a fair chance at believing the gospel before Christ returns.

Second, this assumes the Holy Spirit will be without cause and effect before it is removed from the earth.

Only if you're a Calvinist. Non-calvinists don't believe the Holy Spirit is without case and effect. Just that it's not irresistible.

Third, it assumes that evil will overcome the Holy Spirit

.

Hmm... not sure I follow that one. Giving all men a chance to repent is overcoming the Holy Spirit? Again, I suspect this only is an issue for the Calvinist.

[zak89]

None of this is a problem for Calvinists, because they reject free will. Salvation is all of God and therefore, it doesn't matter if some don't hear because they were never meant to be saved. It also doesn't matter if an infant or unborn child dies, because if they are meant to be saved they will be and if not, they won't. Generally, they believe that the children of believers are saved.

Generally, but without any reason - that's why I said I admire Brent's consistency, even though it obviously leads to some horrific results. Calvin himself referred to the doctrine of election (well, technically it's opposite - but you can't logically have one without the other) as a "terrible decree". It would never pass for justice (or logic!) in any human sense, but most Calvinists I know regard that as a plus. Which makes the debate a somewhat fruitless enterprise. I generally give up and state that, before eternity past, God has foreordained that I never become a Calvinist.

[Preacherman777]

If you're going to say that children are born already condemned, it is more important that you be able to make the case for that being true, than for me to make the case that it isn't true. Ezk. 18 speaks to sin and who will be held accountable and punished for it. It's pretty clear that those things are not passed down father to son nor son to father. The doctrine of original sin was never believed by the Jewish people and has no clear scriptural support, not even in the New Testament.

As for Calvinism, I agree with you. It's not logical and it's also not very Biblical, unless you do some pretty creative eisegesis with the scriptures.

[brent]

Zak, your quote about the nations is not the same as what I was taught. "Nations" is very different in the bible from the people individually. The teaching states that the last person to receive Christ, whoever that is, will trigger the return of Jesus Christ right then and there. It was a bit more literal.

I always asserted the following:
1. Not all people will hear the specific name of Christ, but all nations will at some point. The bible does not say how many qualifies as a nation.
2. Billions of people have died world wide without the knowledge of Christ, even those most exposed to it. Suppose that God is waiting for one specific person to accept him. Why are we holding out for this person when others have perished?
3. God is no respecter of persons, willing that none should perish.

I think we have translated the bible incorrectly and have made it say something it does not. Either that or God IS confusing.

[separateunion]

Catholics and Lutherans believe in original sin. That is the sin with which we are all born because of Adam's sin. They generally believe this sin will condemn us to Hell if we are not baptised.

Sorry, Catholics and Lutherans do not believe that baptism saves.

[separateunion]

Hmm... the reference passage (Matthew 24:14) seems to invalidate the idea that it isn't in the Bible.

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

So there's at least superficial evidence that all will be given a fair chance at believing the gospel before Christ returns.

Preaching the gospel in the whole world does not mean that everyone will be given a fair chance. There are already billions of people that have died who were never given a chance to hear the gospel.

[zak89]

Catholics and Lutherans believe in original sin. That is the sin with which we are all born because of Adam's sin. They generally believe this sin will condemn us to Hell if we are not baptised.

Sorry, Catholics and Lutherans do not believe that baptism saves.

Not exactly - but the Roman Catholic church does teach you cannot be saved without baptism. Exarcly what goes into being saved is a bit muddled - but if you believe the the merits of Christ are aone sufficient for salvation, you are "anathematized" according to the council of Trent. Since anathema means you are put out of the church, and the church is (according to RCC) has a monopoly on salvation, you are effectively damned if you don't followthe RCC teaching. Which makes the practice of modern RCC apologists of referring to "Protestants" as "separated brethren" very disingenous.

lDon't know about the Lutherans.

[zak89]

Hmm... the reference passage (Matthew 24:14) seems to invalidate the idea that it isn't in the Bible.

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

So there's at least superficial evidence that all will be given a fair chance at believing the gospel before Christ returns.

Preaching the gospel in the whole world does not mean that everyone will be given a fair chance. There are already billions of people that have died who were never given a chance to hear the gospel.

You're equivocating "fair chance to believe" with "hearing". We know that all humans have the law of God written in their hearts (Romans 2:15). And we know that all humans have an awareness of God through creation (Romans 2:). So every human has the ability to recognize God as creator, and to recognize a moral standard to which he cannot attain. Putting these two together means that every human has the evidence and the wherewithal to respond to this universal offer. We also know that Christ "[draws] all men to [him]self" (John 12:32), and that his return is delayed by his desire that none should perish (remember, he has "no delight in the death of the wicked"), but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). This tells me that not only is the offer universal, but the wherewithal and (most importantly) the desire of God for the salvation of every individual is universal.

From that, I deduce that every human being has the ability to respond to the universal (though limited) revelation God has granted. A native in a distant jungle might not be able to give a clear description of soteriology. But he certainly can see there must be a creator, he knows there is a moral standard, he knows that be has not (and cannot) live up to this standard. Can he believe the Gospel at this point? No, but he can respond as best he can, no matter how misguided, with a repentant and humble heart, even to an "unknown god", and I believe that a God not willing that any should perish will see to it that he hears the message in time. Can I back this particular point up with scripture? Not really - but it is a very simple deduction from what can be proven with scripture.

Not only that, but there are countless examples of people who have been given the gospel in the most unlikely ways, in response (I believe) to the seeking of God by these individuals. Entire churches have been formed in remote jungles after discovering a Bible in a plane or ship wreck. Can I prove that these events were orchestrated for the benefit of a true seeker in this forgotten jungle? No - but neither can you prove it wasn't, and if God really desires that none should perish, I believe He will ensure that all who seek Him, responding as best they know to the little light we all have, they will find Him.

Now, I have to admit, there is one problem that still has me scratching my head - Romans 10:14 implies that there is an aspect where our spreading of the Gospel (or lack of it) has a direct effect on people's chances at salvation. My current rational is that there may be those who perhaps would respond if the Gospel was preached to them, but they refuse to heed their own consciences today. In other words, the preaching of the Gospel could get through to these people, which doubles the burden on the church to make sure they hear it. But even if they never do, they will be held accountable for their failure to respond to their own knowledge of God, their own knowledge of sin.

Again, I haven't firmed this all up in my own mind yet - this is just how I reconcile all these facts.

[Preacherman777]

Sorry, Catholics and Lutherans do not believe that baptism saves.

Well, yes and no. They believe that spiritual regeneration takes place in baptism, which is necessary for salvation, but they do not believe it completes salvation. For the Catholic, there must be a co-operation between God and man and works become part of the salvation equation. There is no assurance of salvation. For the Lutheran, regeneration also takes place in baptism and so long as you confirm and maintain your faith as you go through life, you will be saved.

From that, I deduce that every human being has the ability to respond to the universal (though limited) revelation God has granted. A native in a distant jungle might not be able to give a clear description of soteriology. But he certainly can see there must be a creator, he knows there is a moral standard, he knows that be has not (and cannot) live up to this standard. Can he believe the Gospel at this point? No, but he can respond as best he can, no matter how misguided, with a repentant and humble heart, even to an "unknown god", and I believe that a God not willing that any should perish will see to it that he hears the message in time. Can I back this particular point up with scripture? Not really - but it is a very simple deduction from what can be proven with scripture.

Not only that, but there are countless examples of people who have been given the gospel in the most unlikely ways, in response (I believe) to the seeking of God by these individuals. Entire churches have been formed in remote jungles after discovering a Bible in a plane or ship wreck. Can I prove that these events were orchestrated for the benefit of a true seeker in this forgotten jungle? No - but neither can you prove it wasn't, and if God really desires that none should perish, I believe He will ensure that all who seek Him, responding as best they know to the little light we all have, they will find Him.

I agree with this 100%. We see examples in Acts 8 and 9 of how such things can happen.

[zak89]

I agree with this 100%. We see examples in Acts 8 and 9 of how such things can happen.

Thanks!! That's exactly what I was thinking of - for some reason that story escaped my mind. The Ethiopian eunuch in particular is exactly the kind of case I was attempting to describe - so I have at least incidental support for my deduction.

For the Lutheran, regeneration also takes place in baptism and so long as you confirm and maintain your faith as you go through life, you will be saved.

Hmm... don't Lutherans believe in eternal security/perseverance of the saints?

[Preacherman777]

Not really, they do leave room for apostasy. Luther of course believed in the bondage of the will, which is not unlike Calvinism in some ways, but Lutherans maintain that lost faith or dead faith can keep one from being saved in the end. Basically, if you trust in Jesus he will keep you. Here is a good write up from a Lutheran website that explains it well and I must say I agree with their conclusions on the matter.

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/once.html

[zak89]

That is very interesting - I had always assumed they followed a more "Calvin-like" approach. I must confess I fall on the other side of eternal security - which is off-topic (well, this whol ehtread is off topic now I guess...). But it's helpful to know that Lutherans aren't as "reformed" as I assumed.

[CatNamedManny]

Throwing another twist into the discussion: What if Jesus is discussing the end times in this passage, i.e., post-rapture, not pre-rapture ... assuming you believe in the rapture at all, of course.

That's something I've heard as an interpretation fairly recently. Before then, I always took it as a figure of speech, i.e., that the gospel would be widespread around the world, not that there is some specific requirement that needs to be met to trigger Christ's return.

[zak89]

Hmm... Regarding Matthew 24:14, that actually fits the context better than if it were a sign before the rapture. However, the parallel passage in Mark 13:10 seems to suggest that these could be signs to watch for prior to the rapture.

It really depends on whether or not you consider the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21) to be talking exclusively about the nation of Israel (post rapture), or both the Church and Israel. It's a sticky subject, because it indirectly relates to the pre-trib Rapture vs post-trib Rapture controversy - boy, now we're far afield!

Most dispensationalists (pre-trib) hold that the church is not even mentioned in the Olivet Discourse passages. They have many reasons for this, some more convincing than others, but a major factor is the verses Mark 13:27 and Matthew 24:31, which refer to the elect being gathered together from the four winds, etc. Post-trib's want this to refer to the Rapture, a position I find unlikely anyways, but if you take the position that the Church is absent from this passage, there's no discussion - it obviously can't be the Rapture if the Church is not mentioned.

Leaving aside that issue for now, I don't think it changes my point - I'm not arguing from the position that Matthew 24:14 means everyone must hear the gospel before Christ returns - I suspect that, like Brent said, it refers more to a widespread knowledge of the gospel. As you pointed out "Cat" (what do I call you for short?), this passage may in fact be referring to events after the Rapture (or at least during the Tribulation, if you are post-trib). The commentators I consulted don't seem to agree here - some take it as referring to something that precedes the Rapture/Advent, others take it as a tribulation even, preceding the Advent and not the Rapture/Tribulation. Interestingly, as I mentioned before, Mark 13:10 is more friendly to the former position - one commentator in fact writes to that conclusion under Mark 13, and refers the reader to Mark 13 under Matthew 24! Picking friendly territory, I guess.

[CatNamedManny]

As you pointed out "Cat" (what do I call you for short?)

Whatever you want. . "Cat." "Manny." "Paul." It's all good.