Hands Off Indigenous Peoples, No Christian Missionaries Allowed

HP: If I accept your stated position at face value, all will hear, therefore it is impossible for blood to be required at anyone’s hands, for again, as you have stated, the ONLY sin that damns one to hell is the rejection of Jesus Christ. All MUST hear in order to reject. That puts the onus on every individual and eliminates entirely any blood on anyone’s hands but the one doing the rejecting. That is contrary to the Word of God as you point out, but your argument remains standing directly in contradiction to that truth. You give a warning then defeat that warning with your logic that declares just the opposite.

 

HP: Here is your one proof text that uses the word ‘all’ in relationship to the gospel appearing to “all men.” I believe you stand alone with such an interpretation, trying to make this verse state that all men universally have received the gospel message. I have not read one recognized commentator, nor heard one preacher in my lifetime (and I have frequented more than one denominational circle for certain) that has ever claimed that verse to imply what you are claiming it to state. Just the same, you have the right to stand firm on this text if you so desire. I believe that you are in error by doing so, but that is your choice.

HP: This verse does not even mention the gospel for one. This verse speaks to knowledge of God’s existence and evidence of invisible things, and as such all men stand before God without excuse, NOT for the rejection of Jesus Christ as you evidently read into the text, for the gospel or the rejection of the gospel is not alluded to in the least.

HP: That is simply a man-made philosophical position that happens to be in error. It has a presupposition a definition of love that is not found anywhere in Scripture or reason. It presupposes that if a pardon is not offered to all, it is unjust for God to hold man accountable. That would only hold water remotely IF the Augustinian dogma of original sin was true, which it is not. Due to the fact that God creates man as a responsible moral creation and provides man with the abilities to do that which He commands, God is completely Just for condemning man for their willful disobedience against known commandments of God. God is under absolutely NO obligation whatsoever to provide a pardon for any man. Scripture plainly teaches that as truth. Ro 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

HP: Speaking of slander, I do believe we have a prime example of it here. I have NEVER blamed, nor would I ever blame God as being cruel in any way whatsoever. No argument that I have used can be shown to imply or state that God is cruel. Your remarks here are as false as they are slanderous. There is no need in any debate to use such personal attacks and slanderous remarks. Foisting false notions upon the other ‘without a cause’ does nothing to exemplify Christian charity. Such tactics and remarks have no place on a Christian debate forum.

HP: Now that indeed is true, but it does nothing to substantiate your position, nor detract from mine.

HP: Again, the great commission shows forth the opposite conclusion as you have came to. It in no way insinuates or implies that all will hear the gospel just because man was commanded to go to all. A command does not necessitate its desired end as you seem to be suggesting.

 

How, then, do you account for Paul using the exact same phrasing about "the law being written on the hearts" of believers as per Romans 10? I have come to learn that Paul is a very careful and thoughtful writer. I think it highly unlikely that he would introduce the ambiguity that your position would seem to require - that in one case, he is referring to the law written on the hearts of everyone (Romans 2) and in the other, referring to those who get that law written on their hearts as a result of faith.

 

HP: The 'law written on the hearts of men' has many different ideas one can safely attach to it. It may refer to the mere intuitive understanding of right and wrong or it may be seen as referring to the ten commandments. It also can point to the two commandments that express the whole law in two simple points. The law of God can also refer to whatsoever can be accomplished in or by faith. That might be two completely different things to two different people.

There is no reason to hold Paul to such a hard and fast rule as to what the ‘law written on the heart’ entails, for it can obviously mean many things when it is used in different senses and speaking of men and women with differing amounts of light and circumstances.