lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) (05/05/91)
In <May.2.05.01.56.1991.2783@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: > I'm constantly >trying to get Ghandi into heaven on a technicality. > Tom Blake > SUNY-Binghamton Do you really think a "technicality" is necessary? I went to Catholic schools through my undergraduate degree, and was always taught that a person had only to follow the lights that were available to him (or her) in order to find salvation. Frankly, I expect to meet up with more than a few surprised atheists in heaven (assuming I get there myself). It's hard for me to fault people who reject organized religion when I look at some of the atrocities organized religion has perpetrated and still perpetrates. If a person cannot bring himself to accept organized religion but nonetheless tries to lead the best life he can according to his conscience, I cannot picture God condemning the man to hell for eternity. God works in many ways; and if the bad behavior of the church leads a person to seek alternatives, it is certainly within God's power to provide this person with the graces necessary to find salvation. In general, I'm extremely hesitant to rule out anyone's chances of salvation. "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Ray lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu
chaplin@uunet.uu.net (chaplin) (05/07/91)
In article <May.4.21.36.11.1991.21437@athos.rutgers.edu> lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes: >If a person cannot bring himself to accept organized >religion but nonetheless tries to lead the best life he can according >to his conscience, I cannot picture God condemning the man to hell for >eternity. God works in many ways; and if the bad behavior of the church >leads a person to seek alternatives, it is certainly within God's power >to provide this person with the graces necessary to find salvation. > >In general, I'm extremely hesitant to rule out anyone's chances of >salvation. "Judge not, lest ye be judged." > >Ray >lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu You are correct, and the Bible provides an example of God providing this grace in Acts chapter 10. Cornelius was "A devout man, and one that feared God..." If God could just accept Cornelius into heaven based on his goodness, why did He send Peter to explain the gospel of Christ? I heard a missionary tell of a man in Africa who early in his life came to the conclusion that the religion of his people just could not explain the wonder of creation, so he prayed to whatever God was there to reveal Himself. The missionary was the answer to that man's prayer. -- Roger Chaplin / Instruments Division Engineering / uunet!keinstr!chaplin CI$: 76307,3506 / voice: (216) 498-2815 / FAX: (216) 248-6168 "In the last analysis the customer is the independent auditor. In the merciless light of real use, every flaw will show." - Frederick P. Brooks, Jr.
smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Mark Smith) (05/08/91)
The problem I have is that if even one person can get to heaven without Christ then Christ's whole trip to Earth was a waste. I don't very much that God is real into wasteful practices such as that. smittie
lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) (05/10/91)
In <May.8.03.41.43.1991.10408@athos.rutgers.edu> smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Mark Smith) writes: >The problem I have is that if even one person can get to heaven without Christ >then Christ's whole trip to Earth was a waste. I don't very much that God is >real into wasteful practices such as that. Then it's _not_ a waste for a good Jew or Moslem to be condemned to Hell? Ray lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu
gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) (05/10/91)
smittie writes:
----------------------------------------
The problem I have is that if even one person can get to heaven
without Christ then Christ's whole trip to Earth was a waste. I don't
very much that God is real into wasteful practices such as that.
----------------------------------------
Theology aside for the moment, Jesus seems to have taught that if only
one person needed it, his trip to Earth would have been worth it, as
in the parables of the lost sheep and lost coin.
--
-Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com djohnson@ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) (05/10/91)
>The problem I have is that if even one person can get to heaven without Christ >then Christ's whole trip to Earth was a waste. I don't very much that God is >real into wasteful practices such as that. It's probably a matter of viewpoint, and opinions on this will stretch to both extremes. However, assuming one can get to heaven without knowing of or acknowledging Christ, this does not imply that it is done without Christ. The sins of all were paid for on the cross (the controversy being whether or not only those who accept him can take advantage of it). Also, if a single person can get to heaven without Christ does not mean that whatever method they used is available to everyone else. -- and now, on a slightly different track -- if anyone is still keeping track of jokes... A man arrives at the pearly gates, and is warmly greeted by St Peter. The man is shown around to all the marvelous sites, music playing everywhere and people are congradulating him. Eventually, St Peter leads the man down a narrow street and cautions him to be very quiet. As the tiptoe along, from behind a tall wall they hear very solemn hymn being played, rather boring compared to the joyous music that was played elsewhere. So they rounded a corner, and St Peter began talking again, pointing out new sites. The man, overcome by curiosity, speaks up: "Pardon my asking, but why did we have to be so very quiet just now?" To which St Peter replied: "Oh that. That's just the Presbyterian area - they think they're the only ones here." (disclaimer - told by a Presbyterian minister :-) -- Darin Johnson djohnson@ucsd.edu - Luxury! In MY day, we had to make do with 5 bytes of swap... [This joke has been told with various different groups as the butt. --clh]
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/10/91)
In article <May.4.21.36.11.1991.21437@athos.rutgers.edu> lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
+
+Do you really think a "technicality" is necessary? I went to Catholic
+schools through my undergraduate degree, and was always taught that a
+person had only to follow the lights that were available to him (or her)
+in order to find salvation. Frankly, I expect to meet up with more than
This is the standard 'Grandfather' clause. This reasoning was
developed to allow such luminaries as Plato, Socrates, and other
righteous pagans in, and their learning taught.
But the legalistic of group might what to debate what constitutes
"following the lights that are available", and then ponder why
proselytize at all. Since if some will be save by following the
available lights, why introduce another which the person may fail
to follow.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edugad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn) (05/11/91)
In article <May.8.03.41.43.1991.10408@athos.rutgers.edu> smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Mark Smith) writes: > The problem I have is that if even one person can get to heaven without > Christ then Christ's whole trip to Earth was a waste. I don't very much > believe that God is real into wasteful practices such as that. Sidestepping the greater issue for the moment, the above sentence is not true. If Christ did not die on the cross, then NO ONE could be saved. It is his death that is the atonement for every person who is saved. The justice of God would have demanded that we all die in our sins, because no one would have paid the price for our salvation. His death (and resurrection!!) paid the price so everyone could be saved. I'm not saying his death *makes* everyone saved, but his death was a sufficient enough sacrifice that it would pay the price for everyone's sins. Without that sacrifice, *none* of us could be saved. Jesus may possibly decide to save someone who did not have any chance of comprehending his gospel. If he decides to do that, it will not mean his sacrifice was a waste. After all, it is his sacrifice that is the event which gives him the right to save that person (along with the rest of us). As to the larger question, my position is... (fade into vague mumblings...I don't want to get into speculating on a case-by-case basis. I won't be the final judge anyway, so my answer will not mean anything. I am confident that God will be the judge, and I am confident in his justice, whatever his decision will be) I do know one way a person can be certain they are saved, and I expect I should act on that knowledge rather than worrying about some of the details that God has not explicitly given us in his holy scriptures. - - - - - - - - Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@rpi.edu or gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) (05/13/91)
In <May.10.03.25.30.1991.6770@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >But the legalistic of group might what to debate what constitutes >"following the lights that are available", and then ponder why >proselytize at all. Since if some will be save by following the >available lights, why introduce another which the person may fail >to follow. It's not impossible to get to heaven without explicitly accepting Christ as Savior, just easier in the sense that there's more direct help available. Hence the justification for evangelism. Neither the "upstanding atheist" nor the "faithful non-Christian" enjoys the full benefits of an intimate, personal relationship with Christ. This is a privilege reserved to us who have explicitly acknowledged and accepted Him into our lives. There is a definite advantage to becoming a Christian, and it lies in having a "more direct link" to the Creator who is the Source of all goodness, including the "lights that are available" to non-christians, who I believe are implicitly accepting Christ when they follow those lights. Ray lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu
ferwerda@clt.enet.dec.com (Paul Ferwerda) (05/13/91)
|> Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian |> |> Then it's _not_ a waste for a good Jew or Moslem to be condemned to Hell? |> |> Ray |> lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu |> Romans 3:23 says "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus", so no one is good in the sense that their goodness is efficacious towards salvation, and all (including saved Christians) deserve being condemned to Hell. -- --- Paul EASYNET=> loptsn::ferwerda Gordon UUCP=> decwrl!clt.enet.dec.com!ferwerda Loptson DARPA Internet=> ferwerda%clt.enet.dec.com Ferwerda Tel (603) 881 2221
harling@pictel.uucp (Dan Harling) (05/13/91)
I think this depends on what it means "to need" Christ for salvation. If it means "to have explicit, theological knowledge of," then I believe that this is a form of gnosticism; theology is a human invention which we use to try to understand God (just as we use physical sciences to try to understand the material universe), and certainly such formal knowledge should not be required of everyone who hopes for the Kingdom of God. If it means "to have one's sins borne by Christ," then I would have to agree with you. Christ's death is sufficient for all sins; the only reason ANYBODY can be saved BY ANY MEANS is because Christ paid our debt. If it were possible for one to be saved without needing Christ's atoning sacrifice, then His death was for nought. 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 creation itself proclaims God's Glory, so that all men are without excuse, how would you answer this question? In Christ, ______________________________________________________________________ Daniel A. Harling PictureTel, Inc. Rockport, MA Peabody, MA Opinions created and propagated by Daniel A. Harling. Reproduction and transmission is permitted without written consent, provided this notice remains affixed. All other rights reserved. Void where prohibited by law. So there.
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/14/91)
In article <May.13.02.04.18.1991.12071@athos.rutgers.edu> 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]