Who gets a "free pass" to heaven?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Dark616

Because a higher % of Christians seem to fall into that category, most likely due to their lack of knowledge of their own faith.

Aha! And that, my friends, is the root of the issue. There is a reason why so many people attack/are hostile to Christians and religion in general: there is a small grain of truth behind their claims. Now, I don't mean to say that Christianity is evil or brainwashes people, or anything of the sort, but modern Christians have taken huge amounts of license in their beliefs in all sorts of areas where it doesn't apply. One of the biggest problems? Why, we've just been talking about it. Christians today think that because "God is love" and "we are forgiven," that nothing else matter outside of that. Wrong! Life isn't just about avoiding sin and doing the right thing all the time. That's called legalism. When life is reduced to simply doing, we ought to fall under the same indictments as befell the pharisees millenia ago! We should strive to grow in Christ, to learn, to develop, to change! To be something, to do something, to change the world! But Christians today are simply cut off from the world and enclosed in their own. No wonder people ridicule us! When Christians no longer know or even seek to know more about the most foundational part of their lives, that support will crumble, and we become less than what we are or what we should be. That is the single greatest root of all the charges thrown at us from other. Anti-homosexual, hypocritical, sheltered, judgemental, ignorant, insensitive, out of touch, all of these stem from a lack of apologetics! We need to study and know what we really believe, and emblazon it in our hearts and minds. That is what the Jews did after all; the studied their beliefs each and every night, and placed it on their doors, their hands, and their foreheads. Now, I'm not saying we need to start wearing the Bible on our foreheads, but think, what does that stand for? It stands for the fact that they valued and knew what they believed. Shouldn't we as well?

Originally Posted by MasterSprtn117

Wow, Loche and Dark have pretty much covered all the questions...I would have helped out, but didn't see this thread till today.



The "age of innocence," as you call it, is not at a certain age. It could vary from person to person. Also, I've never heard it called the "age of innocence," but rather the "age of understanding." It's when one understands that there is a God that created everything and Jesus came down and died for our sins.



Aren't you contradicting yourself there a little? If there were no morals, then people would kill each other everywhere.



Locke talked about animals going to heaven...post #7, paragraph 2.

Hmm, interesting. Did you see my argument on the age of innocence/understanding? It might not have been on this topic, let me check....hmm, can't find it all in one nicely state piece, so I'll restate it for you:

From the very moment we are concieved, we become human. The moment we are human, we inherit the human condition, sin. No matter how much we "understand" it, it is that for which we are held accountable. Were it not for original sin, we could concievable save ourselves by dying before we sinned(the action, not the condition) or understood anything. If that was the case, mass conception followed by mass abortion would be the best thing we could do. We could send millions of babies straight to God, no? In essence, the only way that we can be absolved of our sin, our guiltiness before God, is the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. Nothing else can save us from Hell, most certainly not ourselves. Sola fide, sola gratia, sola Deo gloria, sola Christus, sola scripture, and all that jazz. (In English, by faith alone, by grace alone, glory to God alone, by Christ alone, and by Scripture alone). These fundamental pillars of the Reformation, while not directly inspired by God, are an excellent measure by which to judge any Biblical intepretation.

Well, maybe, maybe not. In political philosphy, this is known as a "state of nature." Basically, a world without laws is a dangerous place, but just because we lack laws does not mean that we will do anything and everything. For instance, I may be capable of doing something, it may even benefit me, but I might not necessarily do it. It happens with animals all the time. A particular bear might be able to get more food by killing his weaker competitor, but does he? I've rarely heard of animals killing each other for anything but food or self-defense. There are certain morals so ingrained in us by God that we know them without even having to write them. This "instinctual morals vs. learned morals" the difference between general and special revelation, in a nutshell. General revelation is the general moral knowledge given to all humans. Special revelation is specific moral commandments given from God, be it in the form of the Bible, direct communication, etc.

[Scatman2009]

to answer the isolation question, it depends on how a particular person lives his/her life.
If the person in the isolated area is truly a good person, wishes well for others, and is honest, then they unknowingly do what God asks of us. Even though they will not receive the blessed sacraments, pray, ect. they were never exposed to it, and God knows this.

[Locke]

Allow me to point you to the "age of understanding" argument I just made. That applies here as well: no matter how good you are, sin is still sin, and can only be forgiven by grace, by the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. You can't follow him if you don't know him, so those in isolation are pretty much screwed. One of the main reasons for missions, actually. Unless you have some scripture that can stand against my argument, that is.

[Scatman2009]

Originally Posted by Locke

...You can't follow him if you don't know him...

Exactly, so why should one be punished for that?
While God is all-justifiable, meaning he punishes those who deserve to be punished, he is also all-caring, and is aware of the isolated peoples' condition.

[Locke]

Why? Because of sin. By the way, God is not "fair." If he were "fair," there would be not salvation. If God were "fair," everyone would be in the same boat. The one going to hell, that is. Everyone deserves punishment, because everyone has inherent, "original" sin. So, again, unless you have scripture to show that God has extended grace to those who don't explicitly follow Him, then you have no Biblical justication for your claim.

[MasterSprtn117]

Originally Posted by Locke

You can't follow him if you don't know him, so those in isolation are pretty much screwed. One of the main reasons for missions, actually. Unless you have some scripture that can stand against my argument, that is.

Those in isolation are not screwed. They still have a chance to know God. They may not know him as Jesus Christ or know about anything else in the Bible, but they can still know him as God, the creator of all.

Romans 1: 18-20 says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

I think that verse is pretty self explanatory, unless you want me to explain a little more.

Also, in Psalms 19:1-4, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world."

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MasterSprtn117

Those in isolation are not screwed. They still have a chance to know God. They may not know him as Jesus Christ or know about anything else in the Bible, but they can still know him as God, the creator of all.

Romans 1: 18-20 says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

I think that verse is pretty self explanatory, unless you want me to explain a little more.

Also, in Psalms 19:1-4, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world."

I would agree that these verses are 100% relevant to the discussion, though perhaps not in the way you intended. These verses are support for general revelation, the knowledge that all humans have of morality and God. However, there are two key phrases that make this the reason why those in isolation are in trouble: "For what can be known about God is plain to them" and "So they are without excuse." They show that all people have enough knowledge of God to understand, and if they can understand, then they are clearly responsible for that understanding. This "without excuse" bit means that even those in isolation have no excuse before God, because they had recieved general revelation. The second verse is basically another support for general revelation.

In short, it is exactly that reason that we are to be vigilant in our missions, to fulfull the charge given by Christ as he ascended into Heaven, to go out to all the nations and teach of him.

[MasterSprtn117]

Originally Posted by Locke

However, there are two key phrases that make this the reason why those in isolation are in trouble: "For what can be known about God is plain to them" and "So they are without excuse." They show that all people have enough knowledge of God to understand, and if they can understand, then they are clearly responsible for that understanding. This "without excuse" bit means that even those in isolation have no excuse before God, because they had recieved general revelation. The second verse is basically another support for general revelation.

In short, it is exactly that reason that we are to be vigilant in our missions, to fulfull the charge given by Christ as he ascended into Heaven, to go out to all the nations and teach of him.

I'm not saying this to discourage missions or anything of that sort, but my point was that because they have enough knowledge to understand God, they can still go to heaven. How? Romans 3:28 says, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." Also, Hebrews 11:4-19 says how people in the Old Testament got to heaven. It's too long to quote here, but it says "by faith" many times. Verse 13 says, "All these people were still living by faith when they died."

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MasterSprtn117

I'm not saying this to discourage missions or anything of that sort, but my point was that because they have enough knowledge to understand God, they can still go to heaven. How? Romans 3:28 says, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." Also, Hebrews 11:4-19 says how people in the Old Testament got to heaven. It's too long to quote here, but it says "by faith" many times. Verse 13 says, "All these people were still living by faith when they died."

Yes, but now we must look into the meaning of "faith" and "law" in context of the chapter, and wider, Paul's writings and intent. This verse basically says that it doesn't matter how much you do, you can't earn Heaven through works. It takes faith. But we know that faith is not something we make: it is given to us by God, and we use it to have a relationship with Him. Faith is a consequence of grace, so no amount of knowledge will save us.

Is this the "Hall of Faith?" This is intended to show that it was faith, not works, that saved those before Christ, and it remains the same today as well. So, again, our knowledge is futile when it comes to salvation; we can't earn it, it has to be given to us. We have to follow Christ in name and deed. The Bible leaves no leeway for anything else.

Just a sidenote as to Paul as a writer: Paul was very big on God's grace as something given to us and not of ourselves originally. When we look into his dedication to Christ(Blinded by God on the way to Damascus, later healed and forgiven of his sin and given a new life in Christ), it is easy to see that anytime he mentions "faith" it is colored by that experience. Even writers such as James, who emphasized works as an important consequence of our faith, never said anything to place works above faith. Works are merely the logical follow-up of the faith that has been given to us.

[da_mean_cat]

The only people that can get that "free pass" as you call it are the innocent ones. Let me explain myself. Babies for one, since they have no sins in them. They're pure and need no repent for something they don't have yet. They were born in a sinning world but they still innocent because they don't know the difference between good and bad. A person who has being mentally retarded since he/she was born. Stayed innocent since he/she never knew what was good and was bad. Other than that, no "free pass". For us who know, is not about being good or being bad... but about if we made the right choice and that's accepting Jesus for His sacrifice is the only thing that can guarantee salvation.

[Locke]

Well, from my understanding of ther Bible, there is "sin" and "sins," no? Sin is a part of the human condition, whereas sins are the physical acts of rebellion we make against God. Every human, no matter how young, has sin; this is known as "original sin." Sins are what you refer to, something babies don't do, or at least, not often(what baby hasn't coveted its neighbor's rattle?). However, we run into problems when we equate these two uses of "sin(s)." If all babies were innocent and OK by God's standards, then why not just abort every baby on Earth? They would be guaranteed Heaven, no? Fortunately, it just doesn't work that way. God has "elected" us to be His children, so nothing we or anyone else can do makes us into a Christian. God calls us, and we follow. However, we cannot follow until He calls, because we are, by nature, sinful and incapable of following Him on our own. It is a part of human nature, which will exist if you're 4 or 40, and yes, even before you're born.

[da_mean_cat]

well... but read all the Bible. It says that we cannot be judged by things we didn't know. Babies know when they do something wrong? No, so they can't be judge. If you abort all babies, there will be no humanity and us who still alive would be doing something against God, so it doesn't work that way. Another thing... there's only 1 sin. Sin, according to the bible, is knowing to do the right thing and not doing it. Just by that, you're sinning. There's no such thing as original sin. The first sin (talking here about Adam and Eve) was 1 sin, like every other that introduced sin in all the world but it still the same sin. We're born in a sinful world, but according to the meaning the Bible gives to the word sin, a baby can't sin. Again, the bible's meaning for sin is KNOWING to do the right thing and NOT doing it, that way being disobedient to God. Another thing is that, yes... God calls, but we still sinners even when he calls us so there's no difference. The only difference, according to Paul, is that now, since we accepted Jesus and his sacrifice, He is our attorney and we repent so our sin is cleaned. We don't live a sinful life, even tho we still sin but not like an habit like we used to.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by da_mean_cat

well... but read all the Bible. It says that we cannot be judged by things we didn't know. Babies know when they do something wrong? No, so they can't be judge. If you abort all babies, there will be no humanity and us who still alive would be doing something against God, so it doesn't work that way. Another thing... there's only 1 sin. Sin, according to the bible, is knowing to do the right thing and not doing it. Just by that, you're sinning. There's no such thing as original sin. The first sin (talking here about Adam and Eve) was 1 sin, like every other that introduced sin in all the world but it still the same sin. We're born in a sinful world, but according to the meaning the Bible gives to the word sin, a baby can't sin. Again, the bible's meaning for sin is KNOWING to do the right thing and NOT doing it, that way being disobedient to God. Another thing is that, yes... God calls, but we still sinners even when he calls us so there's no difference. The only difference, according to Paul, is that now, since we accepted Jesus and his sacrifice, He is our attorney and we repent so our sin is cleaned. We don't live a sinful life, even tho we still sin but not like an habit like we used to.

Ah, now it all becomes clear; the thread of your theology became clear the moment you denied original sin; the is the main place where we differ, and is the foundation for all of the other differences we have. So, it appears as if that will be the issue that we must argue for or against because everything else stems from that. I'll have to do some research though, because no specific references to original sin come to mind at the moment, other than "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Well, if sin is an all corrupting force that alters our nature, then how can we rebel against it? Humans can only act according to their nature and will never act contrary to it. So, unless that nature is changed by the Holy Spirit indwelling in us and convicting us, how could we possibly be anything else but in complete rebellion against God?

It says that we cannot be judged by things we didn't know.

Where? You've said that, twice, yet you haven't pulled up an actual scripture. This I'd like to see.

If you abort all babies, there will be no humanity and us who still alive would be doing something against God

Then leave enough to keep humanity, clone people something. And it wouldn't be against God, it would be helping God, no? It would be giving more children to him, and none of that nasty rebellious sin either. In short, you are right: it would be a heinous crime to kill babies wantonly. But not if you are right it wouldn't be; it would be beneficial.

We're born in a sinful world

Yes, we are. The entire world has been warped and corrupted beyond salvation. It's a permanent condition. Don't you think that humans might share even a small part in that lasting corruption? Or else, why would the Bible talk of a new Heaven and Earth, a new Jerusalem, new perfect bodies for us all? Sin, and this sinful world, are here to stay until Christ returns. The only thing that makes Christians different from everyone else is that they are no longer slaves to sin. They can still commit sins, but we are not bound to sin itself. We are no longer naturally prone to rebel, even though we do sometimes.

Again, this all comes down to original sin, really. I'll do some looking, and I hope that you come up with some verses of your own that support your view of sin, and we'll see where to go from there.

[MackinawTJ]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well, from my understanding of ther Bible, there is "sin" and "sins," no? Sin is a part of the human condition, whereas sins are the physical acts of rebellion we make against God. Every human, no matter how young, has sin; this is known as "original sin." Sins are what you refer to, something babies don't do, or at least, not often(what baby hasn't coveted its neighbor's rattle?). However, we run into problems when we equate these two uses of "sin(s)." If all babies were innocent and OK by God's standards, then why not just abort every baby on Earth? They would be guaranteed Heaven, no? Fortunately, it just doesn't work that way. God has "elected" us to be His children, so nothing we or anyone else can do makes us into a Christian. God calls us, and we follow. However, we cannot follow until He calls, because we are, by nature, sinful and incapable of following Him on our own. It is a part of human nature, which will exist if you're 4 or 40, and yes, even before you're born.

So aborted babies go to hell? Even if they are completely incapable of any thought because their brains are not completely formed yet? And how about if an accidental miscarriage occurs? That seems quite cruel for an "all-loving god" because they are innocent and with no ability to think cannot have a "general revelation" or anything.

P.S. Sorry I haven't been on this thread for awhile, been busy. I skimmed some of the posts and seems like you guys are keeping the debate interesting. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the thread.