How were they saved?

Helen, I'm not done - I'm just leaving on a Thanksgiving Trip. Thanks for the dialogue thus far, and have a Happy Thanksgiving.

 

In your statement that I have bolded, do you mean to say all mankind has always known that there is one Creator God, or always known that he must have faith in the Creator God, or what?

 

Jainism is a sect of Hinduism. Hinduism is polytheistic. Although, having a hindu in my family, I can tell youth that even Hindus have a concept of one Almighty God being over other deities.

I'm not trying to rationalize polytheism, but I though you'd find that tidbit interesting.

 

Those articles put it together -- along with things I and I others posted. Gina, Helen did not prove GIS is true. You can't prove it's true because there is no biblical support for it. I and others here merely asked for better support for GIS, which we do not think was provided. We are not alone in this.

That is not true -- I said I should not have posted that link. You keep harping on this although I apologized both to you in that PM and in a post here. Why do you keep bringing this up? That was one link, Gina, and I regret posting it. Please read that sentence again. How many times do you think I need to apologize? Do I need to apologize more than other people for some reason?

Gina, as I said several times, I've dealt with this issue for many years. I await some biblical support for it. Until then, it is not up to me to refute something that has not been shown to have any biblical support. However, others have already done the work refuting it, and 2 links I posted in the latest post do that.

Okay. Happy Thanksgiving.

 

Marcia, you posted a number of links. I am always responding to your last post unless I say otherwise.

I believe the hope was that you'd post something more of your own but that's ok, at least by me! I got a turkey to roast!

Once again, have a good Thanksgiving!

 

Jainism is a sect of Hinduism. Hinduism is polytheistic. Although, having a hindu in my family, I can tell youth that even Hindus have a concept of one Almighty God being over other deities.

I'm not trying to rationalize polytheism, but I though you'd find that tidbit interesting. </font>[/QUOTE]I think some Hindu followers say that they are not polytheistic as they believe there is One who manifests as many (but in popular culture, they talk of many gods). But the Hindu god (or chief god, depending on the pov), Brahman, is remote and unknowable.

There is no god in Buddhism or Taoism. Some believe that Buddha did not deny a god, but he did not teach about one, either.

So two major world religions -- Buddhism and Taoism -- have no god. In Buddhism (especially some forms of it such as Tibetan buddhism), the bodhisattvas (enlightened beings who come back to help man) are sometimes worshiped as gods and referred to as deities, but technically, there is no god in Buddhism, certainly not the concept of one creator god.

 

I simply don't have time to write on this (I do have a brief reply on my site which I posted a link to earlier). I am too busy reading on and researching areas of my ministry in the occult and New Age. I've been one fo the first Christians (as far as I know) to speak and write on Wicca (I did that back in '95), Feng Shui, Reiki, the Kabbalah, and Goth (I have an article coming out on the latter). I have to be up on Taoism, Theosophy, Eckankar, the continuing changes in Wicca and Neopaganism such as Druidry, Satanism and its various forms, occult magic, many forms of New Age beliefs that are now mainstreaming in the culture, New Age bestsellers and personalities, etc. There is so much my ministry covers and I have only so much time to keep up with it.

I also answer many emails every day coming through my website, from both believers and nonbelievers. Those things are my priority. Anything else, such as GIS, must take a place on the back burner.

 

Ok, good luck and have a great holiday!

 

Happy Thanksgiving to you, too, Gina!

 

Helen

I have enjoyed your posts. I have been interested in astronomy from a young age, still go out with my telescope on nice evenings.

I have read a few books on the subject, and agree that the gospel was recorded in the stars and constellations by ancient civilizations.

Here is a nice site where you can read "The Witness of the Stars" by E.W. Bullinger. I read this book many years ago and was very impressed.

http://philologos.org/%5F%5Feb%2Dtws/

I am sure there are other good books on the subject as well. But this is a very good and informative book for those who are interested in this subject.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

 

Helen, I agree with you about the Hindu roots, but was talking more about how Hinduism developed and where it is today. Hinduism has a very complex history. Hinduism is theistic, however, in contrast to Buddhisma and Taoism, which are non-theistic (not atheistic, and there's a difference).

 

Well, we had a couple of enjoyable days away from home, but it's good to be back. Hope you all had a blessed Thanksgiving.

Interesting that you would write this in response to a post where I asked did you mean this, that, or something else. You have the opportunity to explain.

Concerning that question: if you will look back at my first and second posts on page six, you will notice I was discussing saving faith not as HOW MUCH, but IN WHOM. To this you responded, "Faith in the Creator God, the God of gods and Lord of lords. There is only one, and mankind has always known that." Now just how are we supposed to take that without "twisting your words"? I asked for your explanation. To me it sounds like universalism - saving faith is faith in the Creator God, and all men have known there is only one God. But I don't think you believe that, based on other things I've seen you write. You don't, do you? In this post you've written: "Men have always known there is one God" and "Faith based on whatever knowledge one does have of the true God is what saves."

Your post also comes across sounding like there really is no atheism, deism, pantheism, polytheism, or whatever - just monotheism that all men have always known (making the other somewhat inconsequential?). Oh, they may have other gods, but as long as they have faith in a Creator God, God will deliver them.

Please also further explain this statement: "All mankind has always known there is only one creator God." Do you mean that every individual from Adam & Eve until right now knows or has known there is only one creator God, or just mankind in general? It is not twisting your words to ask you to explain what you mean.

BTW, Osama bin Laden believes in one God. How would you apply what you are saying to someone like him?

To me it sounds like you are ultimately answering your question "How are people who have never heard of Christ saved?" with the response that there are no men who have never heard of Christ.

 

Helen, I share in your frustration. At times I'm not even sure we're not talking about the same thing. I keep thinking you are addressing the question, "How are people who have never heard of Christ saved?", and maybe I don't even know what you mean with that question. For example, some of your statements in your posts made me think you were talking about people before the time of Christ and not the present day, but others made me wonder. And, for another example, your last post indicates you somehow think those who disagree with you disagree with Romans 1, which I do not think is true of anyone who has posted to this thread.

I have gone back and found the other thread you referenced in your original post, and I am going to go back over, re-read and reconsider your original post. I'm copying here Hardsheller's questions, and yours from your original post.

From this, I take it that you reference those before the time of Christ in the first question, and people after the time of Christ who have never heard of Him in the second question. Then the third asks if all of these two groups are doomed for hell.

That's all I have time for now. I'll get back with you later.

 

As I mentioned before, though there may be some differences in detail, I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees that according to Romans 1 mankind is without excuse. Those referenced by Paul, through Creation itself know there is a Creator God, though they do not know Him as Saviour. The issue is not that God cannot use any means, from angel to ass, to speak to mankind. Whether cultures of Chinese or Hindu or any others know something of a Creator God is not really the question. At least it seems to me that Helen and perhaps others have taken on to prove that every single individual from creation has had enough revelation to be saved if they would have just believed it. Jesus seems to contradict that in Matthew 11:21: "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."

I've mostly heard this scripture (and those following) used as a foundation to establish the doctrine of degrees of punishment in Hell, without further explanation. But even that idea seems to admit that some people have had a "better chance" than others.

But Jesus says to these people in Bethsaida and Chorazin that the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon would have repented, given the same revelation as these Galileans had. If so, why did God not give them that much revelation?

P.S. - it seems to me that this might be a hard scripture for Calvinists to fit into their system of theology as well.

 

I know of no reason that the destruction of Nineveh some 150 years or so after the time of Jonah would prove there was no true repentance toward God there. Regardless, I think the context of Matthew 11 points to a true repentance unto salvation. Here is the entire paragraph:

1. vs. 20-21; There is nothing in Jesus' words to indicate He meant anything other than the kind of repentance He expected of Capernaum, Bethsaida, Chorazin and others to whom He was preaching.

2. v. 22; The day of judgment referenced is not a physical judgment on lack of outward repentance, but a future judgment for the Phoenicians as well as the Galileans.

This verse, possibly because is controversial, and/or perhaps because it might tend to upset systematic theologies, didn't get much mention in the commentaries I have. I checked www.crosswalk.com and found most there skipped it as well. Someone might find the views of others thought-provoking, so a few comments I did find are pasted below, most of which can be found at Crosswalk.com.