Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!rutgers!topaz!hedrick
From: hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christian logic (or lack) was: Re: One more time
Message-ID: <6212@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Tue, 14-Oct-86 08:31:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.6212
Posted: Tue Oct 14 08:31:10 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 08:38:16 EDT
References: <2815@pogo.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 58

In response to the continuing discussion with Daveb on the salvation
of non-Christians.  In particular, the discussion over what Paul said
in Romans 2 about Gentiles.  I'm sorry for any confusion caused by the
fact I didn't list the specific Noachic laws (the laws that 1st Cent.
Jewish traditions said were binding on non-Jews).  I was in my office,
and didn't have my reference books handy.  The list that you finally
came up with is roughly the one I have.  However my source (a Jewish
commentator on Paul, H. J. Schoeps, in "Paul") mentions not eating the
flesh of living animals, but not the requirement that there be no
blood in meat.  It also says that there were never a precise agreement
on the number of Noachic laws.  The whole point of that interpretive
tradition was to find a way to consider the pious of all of nations
acceptable to God.  Thus a reading that rules out all but a few
percent of the world's population is not in accordance with the intent
of that interpretation.  But in any case, no matter what other 1st
Cent. rabbis may have said, what Paul seems to be saying is that
people will be judged according to what has been revealed to them, the
Jews by their Law and the Gentiles by what God has made known to them
in their hearts.  The continual attempt to get out of this passage a
specific set of laws that apply to the Gentiles appears to be
diametrically opposed to what Paul is saying.  (This is the reason why
I didn't wait until I got home and could give a precise definition of
the Noachic laws.  The main point of my argument was that Paul was not
setting up a law for Gentiles.)

You mention the importance of blood sacrifice.  Apparently ministers
that you talk to claim that God will not talk to anyone who has not
been cleansed by such a sacrifice.  There are certainly Christian
traditions that emphasize blood sacrifice in this way.  But not even
all conservative Christians would put things quite that way.  The
general Christian position is that all people have sinned, and thus
deserve death.  Christ's death substitutes for ours.  The manner in
which his death releases us from the results of our sin (an action
referred as as the atonement) has never been formulated precisely.
There are several models used in scripture, and some additional ones
introduced in later Christian discussions.  I think many Christians
would say that ultimately it is a mystery, and that no one model will
completely describe it.  (I'm not saying that the models conflict, or
lead to differing ideas of what it means to accept Christ, by the
way.)  Anyway, this emphasis on blood sacrifice comes from one
specific model of the atonement.  I don't think anyone was lying to
you.  Just perhaps letting their own particular emphasis dominate the
discussion a bit more than maybe they should.  But whether a blood
sacrifice is needed is not relevant anyway.  The issue under
discussion is not whether everyone needs Christ's redemption.  All
Christians (at least the way I use the word) agree that they do.  The
issue is whether it is possible for someone to be redeemed by Christ
without having heard of him, or after having had Christ presented in
an inappropriate manner.  I have no idea how a vote on this topic
among all Christians would come out.  There are certainly plenty of
Christians who believe that you must specifically believe in Christ as
preached in the NT in order to be saved.  But those who believe, as I
do, that Christ can find other ways to encounter people are not
thereby minimizing the importance of Christ's death and resurrection.
These are still the only way people can be reconciled to God.  We are
just saying that God may find a way to allow people to take advantage
of them even if they have not had an opportunity to respond to the
Gospel in its explicit form.