How were they saved?

Helen give me one bit of Scritpural evidence that man can hear the Gospel by seeing signs! Sign language is a real language, and through it the deaf hear. There is no comparision between ASL and the "gospel in the stars".

Sure the heavens declare God's glory I agree with that- but that does not mean that they are sufficent revelation for salvation. I read your post and I do not see any Scriptural evidence from what you are claiming.

Again- the Bible is our sole source of theology not our man made notions about the stars. So where in the Scriptures do we see that God would put the "Gospel in the stars"?

 

Yes and to whom was Hebrews written Helen? Hint hint the title tells us. God spoke to His chosen peopel, Israel in times past by the prophets and in various and sundry manners. To some nations God never revealed Himself other than through general revelation, which does not impart slavific knowledge.

The passages you give are continual ripped from there context. You must use a literal, historical hermenutic when interpreting Scripture, somthing you fail to do.

And how about answering my question: Where in the Bible is an account of one person who was saved apart from specific revelation?

 

Why is it strange? Its simple- name one person who was saved outside of God's specific revelation.

God revealed Himself to Abraham in a specific way. God called Abraham out of his pagan background.

 

Please explain what you mean when you say the stars tell us that Jesus came to earth, was born, died, and raised again.

I don't think I have any disagreement with that (unless you further explain in a way with which I cannot agree!).

 

Who said anything about predesitnation? Thats irrelevant to the discussion. All I asked for is an example in Scripture where one person came to salvation apart from specific revelation. That has nothing to do with predesination.

 

Thanks. This explains what I am asking. If I understand correctly, you believe that if a person responds to the truth they have, God will get the Gospel to them.

This is just one of the many reasons I reject your "gospel in the stars" being what Paul or the Psalmist refers to. Whatever they were talking about goes into all the earth into all places to all peoples every day and night. The "gospel in the stars", even if a true concept, only goes to those who have been taught it.

Some of what you've been saying (and perhaps I've misunderstood some of it) reminded of the little wordless book, which has 5 colors. The five colors tell a story. But someone who just sees five colors doesn't automatically know the story. They have to be told. But someone who just sees five colors doesn't automatically know the story. They have to be told. Similarly, it appears to me that you are saying that someone can look up in the stars and see the zodiac and know the story of Christ. Surely not, if the story of the zodiac had not been told them. Your post above seems to assume such. If there's someone there to tell them the "gospel in the stars", why not just give them the gospel in the Bible instead?

 

Mis-post while intending to fix the other one.

 

The signs of the Zodiac are arbitrary creations of the imaginations of men. No one every looked at the stars and thereby figured out the plan of redemption, Mr. Kennedy's fanciful sophistry notwithstanding.

The start, with all the creation, do declare the creative power of God. In that revelation there is enough to condemn a man, but not enough to save him. The only way men were ever saved was by believing the promises of God revealed through prophecy.

These promises have been made from the beginning of time, beginning with the promises made directly by God to Adam and Eve.

Mark Osgatharp

 

I see that in part he agrees with me -- that a Scheckinah glory marked the dwelling of Jesus. As for the other info, many astronomers have investigated this and a few books have even come out but no one has agreed as to what the "sign in the sky" was. No matter what it was, there is no evidence it had to with a gospel in the stars.

Please don't use my past to negate what I said. That is a logical fallacy called, I believe, poisoning the well. My arguments against the GIS are biblical. I see only bad hermeneutics in the GIS arguments and I know the beginnings of the GIS theories are based on a lot of misinformation and certainly not based on the Bible.

I am not against research. In fact, if people did research on the origins of the GIS theories and how there is only bad hermeneutics in the way things are taken out of context for it, they would see it as the flawed and invalid theory it is.

Paranoia? Ad hominem. This is pretty low. And even if I were paranoid (hey, how do I do a ministy to witches, Satanists, New Agers, Goths, etc. if I'm paranoid?), it does not establish the arguments for GIS.

It's interesting how GIS advocates latch onto this verse. This is a poetic passage that has nothing to do with the gospel in the stars, but part of a passage showing God as the Creator. Yes, there are constellations but that does not mean there is a gospel in them. GIS advocates refer to biblical references to stars as if that proves the GIS theory. It does no such thing.

 

Helen, thanks for your attempts to explain what you mean. I must confess the "gospel in the stars" makes a nice story, like the "bible in the deck of cards", but I can put no stock in either its historicity or scriptural foundation. Still what I see is that even if we grant that the story is true, it doesn't seem to address your original question - How are people who have never heard of Christ saved? If the gospel is there in the stars for all to read, then they have in fact heard of Christ. At least that's what I get from your 4th post on page three. So I'm not sure why you brought it up. (And if it's not there, then they haven't heard of Christ, at least not in that scenario)

 

Marcia, let me just point this out.
You are talking to another Christian on this site, by the name of Helen, who has tons and tons of experience with this issue and knows and speaks and works with other Christians who do.
Yet again, you choose to google for a quick answer to negate her, and again use an extremist site, someone with nothing positive to say about Christians anywhere.

Why is this something you don't consider worthy of your consideration? Aren't we to be constantly learning and studying for ourselves? Why does Helen, being who she is and where she is and sitting here talking to you, get no credibility, while a google search that tosses out a few bones leading to extremist sites is used as hard evidence?

I promise you that I'm not trying to upset you, I'm telling you in all seriousness that you have a wonderful resource in Helen, right here at your disposal should you choose. I don't understand why you're underestimating the validity of her knowledge on the topic while giving credit to these other people, especially ones who don't seem to do much more than want to provide exposes on everything from cartoon characters to good Christian preachers.
If it helps, do a search on her and her husband and see the research, then go ahead and compare that lifetime plus of work to the resources jbeard provides. I believe you just may be led to the conclusion that someone who spends their time seriously considering the bible is more worthy of consideration on spiritual matters than a man who spends an awful lot of time finding reasons why Disney's Pocahontas is an affront to Christianity because she isn't submissive enough. Please think about it.

 

Ya killed the "shock-n-aw" value of my next post by asking what I was wondering.

 

Gina, I pm'd you and told you that my arguments against GIS still stand, despite that last link I posted. I publicly apologize for it. But take that away and it does not help the GIS arguments at all. I've dealt with this issues as well - I've had to deal with it since day one of becoming a believer when I picked up a GIS book in the bookstore. I was about 3 days old in the Lord at the time. Since then, I've had to research it, discuss it, ask questions on it, read about it, debate it, etc. I have knowledge on it, too. No matter how much Helen knows, it does not make her arguments correct and it does not validate the GIS.

You are making this all personal and ignoring the solid evidence against the GIS and the invalid evidence for it.

I don't consider this the GIS theory worthy, Gina, because there is no biblical support for it and no other good support. I'm aware of the arguments used for GIS because I've had to debate and discuss it with people. The articles I posted refuting GIS are not extremist (I am not referring to that one link but the others).

It may interest you to know that Charles Strohmer, also a former astrologer, takes the same positions I do and he's studied the issue must longer than I have. He wrote a good article refuting it as well. If you think I'm just getting my info from those links, you are mistaken.

If someone is going to propose a theory like the gospel in the zodiac, there better be some solid evidence for it in the Bible, and there isn't. I know the origins of this theory and I know the texts GIS advocates use, and none of it is valid.

 

John the Baptist.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

HankD