Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: x7mx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: One way to Heaven Message-ID: Date: 27 May 91 22:13:10 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: CIT, Cornell University Lines: 98 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Not too long ago I posted the question (paraphrased): Where in the Bible does it say that not following Jesus by name implies not saved? I would like to thank all those who took the trouble to answer that question, usually with numerous biblical references. Many missed the point: the references either showed that Jesus is the sole source of salvation or that following Jesus implies salvation. The first I accept easily, since to deny that would trivialize the importance of the crucifixion. I however maintain that His salvation is for all, not just Christians. The second does not imply the converse, which is my question. I acknowledge that Mk 16:15 answers my question. At the same time, I do not think this passage alone is watertight: Jesus addressed this towards the Apostles alone; how can we assume that this applies also to our own evangelization efforts? Do we claim the same status the Apostles were given? Why? This is important especially in the cases where we witness to Jesus in ways that insult an unbeliever's intelligent or when we evangelize poorly, making a poor impression. Are the unbelievers also condemned? What about those who were never evangelized? Those who quote Acts 2:38 should realize the context of the situation. The people were troubled; perhaps their hearts were already set afire by the Holy Spirit. I wouldn't go on and say: "Well, here is an exhaustive list of possible ways to salvation. First you can have a chat with Buddha, or you can join us or...". It's like answering "The house is on fire! What must we do?" the same way. Rather, you would say something like "Pour water on it!" when in fact you could also use a fire extinguisher, call the fire brigade, scoop sand on it, let it burn out, etc. Before we write off non Christians, I would like to pose the following line of reasoning: 1. Jesus is God. 2. Many non-Christians believe in and worship God. 3. Therefore they also believe in Jesus. They may not believe that our romanized spelling J-E-S-U-S represents God. They may not believe in the intellectual notion that Someone can be both Man and God. They may even reject that notion completely, but this does not deny their faithfulness to God if they follow Jesus' commandments to love. They follow, not reject God. It would be unfair to say that they reject God simply because they do not believe what we tell them is true. This next line of reasoning I do not claim credit for, and will quote in part, shortening to save space: 1. There is only one God. 2. Jesus Christ is God. 3. God is the Creator of all that is good. But Jesus is God. Therefore all that is good is from Jesus. 4. But we do see goodness in people of other faiths. To deny this is to be willfully blind. 5. Therefore whatever good we find in whomever it may be, comes from Christ Jesus. 6. If no 5 is true then Jesus Christ must be working in Christians as well as in people of other faiths since all good comes from Him and goodness is found in people of other faiths. 7. This means that Christians cannot limit Christ, the Son of God's salvic work to Christians only. [Acts 11:17]. God works in everyone (Acts 14:16-17). 8. If Christ were to be limited to Christians, He would no longer be God but the president of Christians since He could only save Christians and would be only for Christians. If we were to claim that only baptised Christians could be saved, we would actually be denying Christ's divinity. 9. In defending athe belief that people of other faiths can be saved, we are in fact defending Christ's divinity. [note *can* be saved, not *are*]. I realize that I have posed a number of questions again. I will refrain from posting any further rebuttals, though I will continue to read replies as long as my account lasts (not much longer). I am particularly interested in explanations on why God, who sacrificed his own Son that others may live, would impose such conditions on salvation ie that we must believe in Jesus' actual name. Why would a loving God damn people who fail to acknowledge His Son due to intellectual barriers but who otherwise lead righteous, loving lives (which indirectly show their allegiance)? Remember Matthew 25:31. In Christ, Chris [As you presumably know, some read as Mk 16:15-16 as condemning only those who do not believing after having heard the Gospel. In past discussions it has been fairly common for Christians to believe that it's possible for people to be saved if they have never heard the Gospel (and I claim, if they have heard it in a context that turns it into a lie, as was all too often in Christian dealings with Jews). --clh]