Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Non-Christians in Heaven (was: Original sin of infants) Message-ID: Date: 14 May 91 07:26:27 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of California, San Diego Lines: 29 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article harling@pictel.uucp (Dan Harling) writes: +These two interpretations make all the difference in the world. The +real issue should be, "Can a person be saved without being told +(presumably by another human) about Jesus?" Or, read another way, "Is +knowledge of Christian theology a prerequisite of salvation?" If I presume most Christians assume the latter. Otherwise what's the point of evangelism, and the continual devaluation of 'alternative' religions or beliefs. It also seems that if any major denomination comes close to 'accepting' alternatives, the group is labeled 'apostate'. -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu [My impression from previous postings here is that many (maybe a majority -- without a formal poll there's no way to know) of our readers believe at least that those who haven't heard the Gospel can be saved. I would think many of those would be willing to extend the concept to those who have heard the Gospel, but presented badly. (Concretely, if your only contact with Christ is through Christians who are persecuting you, I doubt that you have in any meaningful sense heard the Gospel. Some time ago I suggested that there are actually cases where becoming a Christian could cause you to be damned. Suppose you are in a group being persecuted by Christians, and you join the persecutors?) The Catholic Church seems to accept the concept of "anonymous Christians", and Catholics seem to be a bit more than 50% of Christians. --clh]