Any opinions on this subject?

In what sense? Can you give me an example?

Read proverbs. Just do it, it's a useful read, if you pay attention to what it says. Your answer is in proverbs.

In what sense? Can you give me an example?

The reason I ask this rhetorical question is because I am continually having a conversation with someone who insists that all those not knowing God will be destroyed. When I point out that it seems she is accusing God of injustice by portraying Him as killing based on an inflexible rule she simply replies that the Bible clearly tells us that those not knowing God will be destroyed. When I explain that it depends on the reasons causing the ignorance she remains fixated on that inflexible rule.

Now, I personally don't believe that this rule-based conclusion is a Christian teaching. But I am wondering on just how prevalent this belief is among those calling themselves christians and if it is prevalent on why is it allowed to prevail by those who are taking the lead in being shepherds of the flock and whom one would assume should know better.

No, it's not a Christian teaching.

Christian = Christ = New Testament (specifically the Gospels).

Proverbs is in the Old Testament. If that is true, about ignorance = destruction, then we can prove anything by plucking a verse out of any OT book and shaping a teaching out of it, like knitting a sweater around a button? I don't think so! Read Proverbs in context and know how it fits into the Bible historically.

Christians believe in both parts of the bible.
The first part (among other things) prophecies the coming of christ, the second part is after and during the coming of christ.

Why is it an injustice to have a strict rule. If you speed, you get a speeding ticket ( or should) if you murder someone you go to jail.
If you don't accept Christ you are not saved. It is a persons choice, God merely sit the rules, man makes the choice.

Why is it an injustice to have a strict rule. If you speed, you get a speeding ticket ( or should) if you murder someone you go to jail.
If you don't accept Christ you are not saved. It is a persons choice, God merely sit the rules, man makes the choice.

I think you misunderstood me.

The way the person expressed the rule made relevant and factors I mentioned seem irrelevant. God is too just to proceed in that type of modus operandi. Brings to mind the carpet bombing during WWII where everyone below was trhe enemy amd deserved to die simply because the rule was that they were the enemy and therefore deserved death. Mankind proceeds along those inflexible lines--God does not.

BTW

Ultimately acceptance of Jesus is necessary for salvation. But a person's rejection of Jesus doesn't occur in a vaccuum and the reasons are relevant to the passing of either immediate condemnatory judgement or to the extension of mercy and provision of illumination so that the person can make a truly informed decision with clearness of mind.

Cal, (to finish my aborted rep)... Christians are called that because of Jesus Christ who officially appears in the NT. The OT is SOS (show our sin); the NT is SOS (show our Savior).

Christianity is very much a black is white, bad is good; up is down... kind of confusing religion. That is positive in the sense that there is plenty of room for all kinds of people with different religious opinions because of conflicting New Testament verses. There are also errors and proven forgeries that have made it down through the ages that make it impossible to have a simple, cohesive NewTestament, hence, there is no one undeniably true Christian religion.

So, you asked is ignorance equal to destruction in Christianity. That is sort of a non question in a Christian sense. Perhaps, if you asked if rejecting the dogma that only Christians go to "heaven" (not sent to hell for eternity as destruction), then in the Christian worldview, rejecting Christianity(chosing ignorance) is equal to destruction.

Perhaps I should write what I am meaning in Swahili in order to be understood since simple English is definitely not doing the job? In any case, thanks all for the feedback.

My faith does not believe that the lack of knowledge of our Saviour means that you will be punished. After all I believe that God is a loving Heavenly Father who wants all of his children to return. Would you possibly deny your child eternal life for not accepting a principle that was never taught? THere have been countless numbers of people who lived and died and never knew of our Savior, never had the opportunity to know Him. It would be an unfair God to punish those who never had to chance to learn of Christ.

Starman, it depends on whether you believe the bible. Romans 2 seems to make it clear that you can't plead ignorance.


12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,

15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

There is a "natural law" - conscience - by which those who have not heard the gospel will be judged. If one sins against the conscience that is within them they are as Paul said earlier, "without excuse." Every person that has the capacity to do so makes a choice, it isn't ignorance. This is particularly troubling for the skeptics that argue their "natural" morality shows they have no need for God. They may say it isn't troubling to them, but the very justification they use is that which condemns them before a just God.

Starman, it depends on whether or not you believe the bible. Romans 2 seems to make it clear that you can't plead ignorance.



There is a "natural law" - conscience - by which those who have not heard the gospel will be judged. If one sins against the conscience that is within them they are as Paul said earlier, "without excuse." Every person that has the capacity to do so makes a choice, it isn't ignorance. This is particularly troubling for the skeptics that argue their "natural" morality shows they have no need for God. They may say it isn't troubling to them, but the very justification they use is that which condemns them before a just God.


The premise is faulty:

Choice proves non-ignorance

He chose

He wasn't ignorant


Either or?[

You are posing a false dillema my friend. Actually there is a third alternative which is:

3. It all depends on whether I understand the Bible the way you do or not.


Ignorance

About ignorance not being an excuse for getting away from God's wrath, how then do you explain Jesus saying forgive them for they know not what they do?


Socialization/Conscience

The conscience rule would work in a world where everyone has identical culturally formed values. Unfortunately, each individual conscience is molded via the society in which he is born and according to that mold they trend to determine what is right and wrong.

The premise is faulty:

Choice proves non-ignorance

He chose

He wasn't ignorant

I believe that's exactly what I said, "it isn't ignorance."



Either or?[

You are posing a false dillema my friend. Actually there is a third alternative which is:

3. It all depends on whether I understand the Bible the way you do or not.

A false dilemma? This passage seems fairly straightforward to me.


Ignorance

About ignorance not being an excuse for getting away from God's wrath, how then do you explain Jesus saying forgive them for they know not what they do?

Are you assuming Jesus' intent is to give these guys a pass on terms other than what He had previously stated?


Socialization/Conscience

The conscience rule would work in a world where everyone has identical culturally formed values. Unfortunately, each individual conscience is molded via the society in which he is born and according to that mold they trend to determine what is right and wrong.

I don't see how that contradicts the passage in Romans.

I believe that's exactly what I said, "it isn't ignorance."




A false dilemma? This passage seems fairly straightforward to me.



Are you assuming Jesus' intent is to give these guys a pass on terms other than what He had previously stated?



I don't see how that contradicts the passage in Romans.

Well, since you see absolutely no contradiction between Jesus clearty asking God to forgive based on ignorance and your belief that ignorance is irrelevant. See no contradiction between people being socialized to have different views of right and wrong and the injustice of an inflexible rule which totally ignores that well-known fact, or don't see a false dillema where there is clearly a third alternative possible, or can't perceive a faulty premise wich links ignorance to ability to choose which would make God himself ignorant because he can choose, then I guess this conversation has come to an end. Thanks for the feedback in any case.

Well... Thanks for the feedback in any case.

Nice try Starman, but I don't go away that easily. First, I agree that "ignorance=destruction" is NOT a Christian teaching, but if you believe the bible it's extremely clear that you if you have the capacity to claim ignorance you are "without excuse" before God.


For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse -King James Version 1611, 1769

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse -New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God. -New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. -New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

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. -The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. -New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse -Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.

For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, [even] his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse -American Standard Version 1901

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead -- to their being inexcusable -Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898

For from [the] world's creation the invisible things of him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both his eternal power and divinity, -- so as to render them inexcusable. -J.N.Darby Translation 1890

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse -Noah Webster Version 1833

For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse. -Hebrew Names Version 2000

Where is the wiggle room?


since you see absolutely no contradiction between Jesus clearty asking God to forgive based on ignorance and your belief that ignorance is irrelevant.

I don't much care for people explaining my arguments for me. I asked you a question and if you want credibility here you need to answer it. "Are you assuming Jesus' intent is to give these guys a pass on terms other than what He had previously stated?" What were the previously stated terms? From John:


3:3, Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

3:5, Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

3:7, Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

3:16, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

3:18, He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

3:36, He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

5:24, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

6:40, And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

So did Jesus and the scriptures lie before? You don't really need to be born again? You don't really need to believe in the Son of God? You don't think there is more to your quotation from the cross than as a proof text to support your logic?


See no contradiction between people being socialized to have different views of right and wrong and the injustice of an inflexible rule which totally ignores that well-known fact

Go ahead, tell a skeptic his/her morals are lesser than a Christian's morals. They will likely tell you their morals are equal to/better than/similar to that of Christianity. It's been argued to me over and over again by such skeptics that they have an inherent nature to abide by what amounts to the golden rule. What you're seeing as an "inflexible rule" even myself and skeptics can agree on being an inherent morality.


or don't see a false dillema where there is clearly a third alternative possible

Starman, I just showed you your interpretation of Jesus' saying on the cross likely has an understanding other than what you present. But to interpret it your way clearly contradicts the majority text, whereas the passages I cite in Romans are clearly in agreement with the majority text.


or can't perceive a faulty premise wich links ignorance to ability to choose which would make God himself ignorant because he can choose, then I guess this conversation has come to an end.

I can perceive just fine thank you. I can read as well - I understand perfectly what "without excuse" means.

The premise is faulty:

Choice proves non-ignorance

He chose

He wasn't ignorant


Either or?[

You are posing a false dillema my friend. Actually there is a third alternative which is:

3. It all depends on whether I understand the Bible the way you do or not.


Ignorance

About ignorance not being an excuse for getting away from God's wrath, how then do you explain Jesus saying forgive them for they know not what they do?


Socialization/Conscience

The conscience rule would work in a world where everyone has identical culturally formed values. Unfortunately, each individual conscience is molded via the society in which he is born and according to that mold they trend to determine what is right and wrong.


Speech provides a very good answer.

To this Christian, ignorance is not an option [ Romans: 2: 18-20 ].
Almost every civilization believes in a god[s], from Romans, to Greeks, Mayans, Chinese, etc...


"they know not what they do " Luke 23: 54
Refers to the fact that his crucifiers did not accept Him as the Son of God, remember it was a plot driven by the pharisees. That phrase just points to His mercy.


I think it would be safe to say that each individual Christian interprets the Bible in a different way, and that's okay, I know plenty of Christians that don't even open the Bible.
I don't judge you according to if we agree on every word in the Bible. My opinion does not count. God is the ultimate judge, only His opinion counts, and He knows what is in your heart.:)




Grace and Peace

Nice try Starman, but I don't go away that easily. First, I agree that "ignorance=destruction" is NOT a Christian teaching, but if you believe the bible it's extremely clear that you if you have the capacity to claim ignorance you are "without excuse" before God.

[quote]][INDENT] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse -King James Version 1611, 1769

Yes, there are some people who are inexcusable. But only God knows which are and which are not. Ageed?




So did Jesus and the scriptures lie before? You don't really need to be born again? You don't really need to believe in the Son of God? You don't think there is more to your quotation from the cross than as a proof text to support your logic?

I agree 100% with all the scriptures you have quoted. Eternal life is gained by accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior. In short, I think you are misunderstanding my viewpoint.





Go ahead, tell a skeptic his/her morals are lesser than a Christian's morals. They will likely tell you their morals are equal to/better than/similar to that of Christianity. It's been argued to me over and over again by such skeptics that they have an inherent nature to abide by what amounts to the golden rule. What you're seeing as an "inflexible rule" even myself and skeptics can agree on being an inherent morality.

The inherent nature you speak of is very often twisted via socialization. In short, socialization differentiates our values until what appears to be right to you will seem totally nonsensical to others. In such cases a just God will understand and show mercy. That's what Jesus died for--so that God could show mercy based on his ransom sacrifice.




Starman, I just showed you your interpretation of Jesus' saying on the cross likely has an understanding other than what you present. But to interpret it your way clearly contradicts the majority text, whereas the passages I cite in Romans are clearly in agreement with the majority text.

Repetition of the same text in many different Bible versions doesn't necessarily constitute majority text. Neither does a presentation of many texts in seeming support of an idea necessarily mean that they nullify a singular text. Why? Because the majority texts might be applied in the wrong manner based on a misunderstanding while the single text might have been applied correctly. Actually, what does count is whether indeed we are describing God as just or unjust. If we are describing Him as arbitrarily unjust, then our idea should be rejected for one which glorifies his righteous personality and not one which cases people who are cognizant of ethical matters in reference to passing of judgment to wince.






I can perceive just fine thank you. I can read as well - I understand perfectly what "without excuse" means.


Sorry if I offended you. But the incomprehension claim was yours in reference to yourself in relation to my clear explanations. So I was simply agreeing with your own statement. In any case, I apologize if offense was given.


Here is a more extensive clarification of my biblically based viewpoint:


The reason I posted the question was to see just how extensive the belief in no-excuse if you are ignorant belief is not to challenge your right to hold that belief since obviously it is your right to believe whatever you choose to. I personally don't see things the way you do--but I am not condemning you as inexcusable since only God can read our hearts. So it isn't in a judgmental way that I am conversing with you. Neither was I trying to get rid of you since I did request feedback and do appreciate feedback when I ask for it. I was only throwing up my hands in resignation because you claimed not to understand any of the points I put forth. Based on that I assumed any further conversation would lead nowhere.

As for biblical proof texts, I agree that there are people who are inexcusable. However, I don't agree that that inexcusable statement applies to those who are retarded, emotionally incapable of evaluating, those whose minds have been warped via brainwashing and can't reason properly due to it, or those whose genetic heritage makes them basically unreasonable. All those things are relevant to the inexcusable judgment and a just judge would never condemn someone for not doing something he is incapable of--in this case informed rejection of the Ransom Sacrifice. In such cases the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus is applied and those persons are given a fair eto accept or reject
by being given the capacity for understanding and for a lucid evaluation of the evidence presented. Only then can they be fairly judged as being inexcusable.

As for the scripture, well, there are people who are definitely inexcusable. However, neither you nor I are in any remotely qualified position to say exactly who those individuals are. That is for God to decide since he alone qualifies for that responsibility despite human assertions otherwise.


About Jesus' words, I think they are very clear. In certain cases ignorance is considered to be sufficient for forgiveness. Not all cases, certain cases.

1 Timothy 1:13
though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief,

Acts 3:17
"And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.
Acts 3:16-18 (in Context) Acts 3 (Whole Chapter)


Acts 17:30
The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,

The error lies when we attempt to carpet bomb all cases under the inexcusable condemnation rule which wasn't intended to be an arbitrarily applicable no-exceptions-permitted rule to begin with but which can be viewed as one as you are doing now.


Jonah, God's Objectionable Mercy, and the Way Of Wisdom (http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/ssr/issues/volume3/number1/ssr03-01-e01.html)

Starman, it depends on whether or not you believe the bible. Romans 2 seems to make it clear that you can't plead ignorance.



There is a "natural law" - conscience - by which those who have not heard the gospel will be judged. If one sins against the conscience that is within them they are as Paul said earlier, "Without excuse." Every person that has the capacity to do so makes a choice, it isn't ignorance. This is particularly troubling for the skeptics that argue their "natural" morality shows they have no need for God. They may say it isn't troubling to them, but the very justification they use is that which condemns them before a just God.

It's important to keep in mind that ignorance, or lack of knowledge about the Devil's cunning strategies can cause the making of wrong decisions:

2 Corinthians 2:11
So that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.


With this in mind:

Romans does speak about inexcusability in relation to certain people who behave in certain ways and who are capable of seeing his eternal qualities in creation. However, not everyone has that capacity and because not everyone has that capacity mercy based on Jesus' Ransom sacrifice is extended. That is my understanding which as you can see is different from yours.


1 Timothy 1:13
Though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief,

Hebrews 5:2
He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness.

Yes, there are some people who are inexcusable. But only God knows which are and which are not. Ageed?

Absolutely, I agree only God knows.


The inherent nature you speak of is very often twisted via socialization. In short, socialization differentiates our values until what appears to be right to you will seem totally nonsensical to others. In such cases a just God will understand and show mercy. That's what Jesus died for--so that God could show mercy based on his ransom sacrifice.

Put it this way, would someone who actually does hear the gospel and does experience the witness of the Holy Spirit be excused because socialization twisted his judgment?


Repetition of the same text in many different Bible versions doesn't necessarily constitute majority text.

Never said it did, but it does show in this case that every translation agrees that people are "without excuse" before God. It does not mean "ignorance=destruction", it means you aren't ignorant because God has revealed Himself.


Neither does a presentation of many texts in seeming support of an idea necessarily mean that they nullify a singular text. Why? Because the majority texts might be applied in the wrong manner based on a misunderstanding while the single text might have been applied correctly.

Huh? The whole of the NT is in agreement that "Eternal life is gained by accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior" as you put it. The idea that Jesus is bypassing that route and granting salvation based on ignorance for those who knew full well what they were doing seems more than a stretch. Matthew Henry puts it this way:


The petition: Father, forgive them. One would think that he should have prayed, "Father, consume them; the Lord look upon it, and requite it.’’ The sin they were now guilty of might justly have been made unpardonable, and justly might they have been excepted by name out of the act of indemnity. No, these are particularly prayed for. Now he made intercession for transgressors, as was foretold (Isa. 53:12), and it is to be added to his prayer (Jn. 17), to complete the specimen he gave of his intercession within the veil: that for saints, this for sinners. Now the sayings of Christ upon the cross as well as his sufferings had a further intention than they seemed to have. This was a mediatorial word, and explicatory of the intent and meaning of his death: "Father, forgive them, not only these, but all that shall repent, and believe the gospel;’’ and he did not intend that these should be forgiven upon any other terms. "Father, that which I am now suffering and dying for is in order to this, that poor sinners may be pardoned.’’ Note, [1.] The great thing which Christ died to purchase and procure for us is the forgiveness of sin. [2.] This is that for which Christ intercedes for all that repent and believe in the virtue of his satisfaction; his blood speaks this: Father, forgive them. [3.] The greatest sinners may, through Christ, upon their repentance, hope to find mercy. Though they were his persecutors and murderers, he prayed, Father, forgive them. (2.) The plea: For they know not what they do; for, if they had known, they would not have crucified him, 1 Co. 2:8.

Henry grants "there is a kind of ignorance that does in part excuse sin" and I agree with that, but he is also careful to add that many of those who had a part in the spectacle of the crucifixion were converted at the preaching of Peter.


Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?


Actually, what does count is whether indeed we are describing God as just or unjust. If we are describing Him as arbitrarily unjust, then our idea should be rejected for one which glorifies his righteous personality and not one which cases people who are cognizant of ethical matters in reference to passing of judgment to wince.

I believe in a just God, and I don't see how I've portrayed Him as anything but just.



Sorry if I offended you. But the incomprehension claim was yours in reference to yourself in relation to my clear explanations. So I was simply agreeing with your own statement. In any case, I apologize if offense was given.

No problem, but what incomprehension claim?


The reason I posted the question was to see just how extensive the belief in no-excuse if you are ignorant belief is not to challenge your right to hold that belief since obviously it is your right to believe whatever you choose to. I personally don't see things the way you do--but I am not condemning you as inexcusable since only God can read our hearts. So it isn't in a judgmental way that I am conversing with you. Neither was I trying to get rid of you since I did request feedback and do appreciate feedback when I ask for it. I was only throwing up my hands in resignation because you claimed not to understand any of the points I put forth. Based on that I assumed any further conversation would lead nowhere.

You must have me confused with someone else. I don't recall, nor can I find where I made any claim not to understand what you were talking about.


a just judge would never condemn someone for not doing something he is incapable of

We agree on that, you just seem to carry it a little further than I would.


As for the scripture, well, there are people who are definitely inexcusable. However, neither you nor I are in any remotely qualified position to say exactly who those individuals are. That is for God to decide since he alone qualifies for that responsibility despite human assertions otherwise.

And that my friend, is exactly my point of view as well, and I don't find it contradictory to anything I've said.


About Jesus' words, I think they are very clear. In certain cases ignorance is considered to be sufficient for forgiveness. Not all cases, certain cases.

1 Timothy 1:13
though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief,

Starman, sorry but that's a poor example. We have the account of Paul's conversion and he did receive mercy in that he was healed - but he was also obedient - "and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." Paul emphasized in this passage that "the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith" and that the mercy he received and his conversion was "a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting."


Acts 3:17
"And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.
Acts 3:16-18 (in Context) Acts 3 (Whole Chapter)

Again, read the bookends, "through faith in his name" in verse 16 and "Repent ye therefore, and be converted" in verse 19.


Acts 17:30
The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,

The key is quite simply in the last half of the verse, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent


The error lies when we attempt to carpet bomb all cases under the inexcusable condemnation rule which wasn't intended to be an arbitrarily applicable no-exceptions-permitted rule to begin with but which can be viewed as one as you are doing now.

Starman, I have yet to even imply "ignorance=destruction" is a "no-exceptions-permitted rule." All I'm doing is agreeing with scripture which basically boils down to, God used to overlook ignorance but he doesn't now, He commands all people everywhere to repent and have faith in Christ, and that if you have the capacity to plead ignorance he won't accept that as an excuse, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

Absolutely, I agree only God knows.

Then why are you applying that rule ton everyone regardless of their mental condition
or circumstances?




Put it this way, would someone who actually does hear the gospel and does experience the witness of the Holy Spirit be excused because socialization twisted his judgment?

Hearing alone doesn't guarantee comprehension. Many people hear the Good News of God's Kingdom but are incapable of accepting it due to having been brainwashed by their social upbringing to view it as a lie. I would expect a God of justice to take lack of knowledge concerning his laws into consideration before pronouncing a person culpable and passing the death sentence.

Actually, hearing and yet not accepting is described by Jesus in a parable as follows:


Luke 8:10-12 (New King James Version)

10 And He said, “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that


' Seeing they may not see,
And hearing they may not understand.'[a]

The Parable of the Sower Explained

11 “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.




Never said it did, but it does show in this case that every translation agrees that people are "without excuse" before God. It does not mean "ignorance=destruction", it means you aren't ignorant because God has revealed Himself.

It isn't any special revelation that Paul was referring to. Only the presence nature itself--or the things made. I agree, many are without excuse. But to say all are condemned to death because they simply are unable to see what we see in nature as a manifestation of our creator is to portray God as being inconsiderate of human frailty.

Psalm 103:13-15 (New King James Version)

13 As a father pities his children,
So the LORD pities those who fear Him.
14 For He knows our frame;
He remembers that we are dust.





Huh? The whole of the NT is in agreement that "Eternal life is gained by accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior" as you put it. The idea that Jesus is bypassing that route and granting salvation based on ignorance for those who knew full well what they were doing seems more than a stretch. Matthew Henry puts it this way:

Henry grants "there is a kind of ignorance that does in part excuse sin" and I agree with that, but he is also careful to add that many of those who had a part in the spectacle of the crucifixion were converted at the preaching of Peter.

That's where the misunderstanding is! I am not proposing that anyone bypass Jesus since that is impossible in reference to salvation.

John 17:3
And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Those ignorant persons I am referring to will ultimately have to accept Jesus as savior in order to gain salvation just like everyone else.



I believe in a just God, and I don't see how I've portrayed Him as anything but just.[/b]


By saying that he doesn't take the human condition caused by imperfection into consideration when passing the death sentence.




Starman, sorry but that's a poor example. We have the account of Paul's conversion and he did receive mercy in that he was healed - but he was also obedient - "and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." Paul emphasized in this passage that "the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith" and that the mercy he received and his conversion was "a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting."


Not at all! Paul, formerly Saul, had stood by holding the garments of those who were stoning Stephen. Stephen cried out in prayer that the sin should not be attributed to those who were doing it.

Acts 7:58-60 (New King James Version)

58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

That prayerful request included Paul who was cooperating with this murder of a servant of God because-as he himself tells us-he was ignorant. That action based on that ignorance was not held against him. If indeed he had cooperated in murdering Stephan in full knowledge that he was wrong and that Stephen was indeed truly God's servant, then there would not have been a basis for forgiveness and neither would Saul have repented since he knew full well what he was doing. But because he didn't know, and was doing it out of ignorance and not malice, his heart was amenable to repentance.

I am not advocating non-repentance. I am simply saying that ignorance is a factor God takes into consideration when passing judgment.




Starman, I have yet to even imply "ignorance=destruction" is a "no-exceptions-permitted rule." All I'm doing is agreeing with scripture which basically boils down to, God used to overlook ignorance but he doesn't now, He commands all people everywhere to repent and have faith in Christ, and that if you have the capacity to plead ignorance he won't accept that as an excuse, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."


I agree that once God did not command everyone to repent because Jesus had not yet died for the sins of mankind. Actually, demanding repentance of Gentiles before the Ransom was given for their sins would have been premature since no basis for forgiveness of Gentile sins would have been legally available. So God left them in their ignorance until the appropriate time. However, this is a far cry from condemning every ignorant person to death simply because they are ignorant.

Then why are you applying that rule ton everyone regardless of their mental condition or circumstances?

You have obviously missed that from the first post I have offered exceptions. I just don't agree it's as broad as you present it.


Hearing alone doesn't guarantee comprehension.

Agreed.


Many people hear the Good News of God's Kingdom but are incapable of accepting it due to having been brainwashed by their social upbringing to view it as a lie. I would expect a God of justice to take lack of knowledge concerning his laws into consideration before pronouncing a person culpable and passing the death sentence.

But here is the kicker which can be gleaned from my first post. Let's say an atheist, even one hostile to God, raises their children to be hostile to God yet they demonstrate "things contained in the law," they themselves live by that "golden rule" I mentioned and teach their kids the same, Paul says they are "without excuse." There is no scriptural way around that Starman.


It isn't any special revelation that Paul was referring to. Only the presence nature itself--or the things made. I agree, many are without excuse. But to say all are condemned to death because they simply are unable to see what we see in nature as a manifestation of our creator is to portray God as being inconsiderate of human frailty.

Again, I never said "all are condemned to death." And again, the bible clearly disagrees with you, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them."


That's where the misunderstanding is! I am not proposing that anyone bypass Jesus since that is impossible in reference to salvation.

John 17:3
And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Those ignorant persons I am referring to will ultimately have to accept Jesus as savior in order to gain salvation just like everyone else.

You'll have to explain that further.


I am not advocating non-repentance. I am simply saying that ignorance is a factor God takes into consideration when passing judgment.

I have no problem with that, you just apply that factor of ignorance more broadly than I do and as I believe the scriptures do.


I agree that once God did not command everyone to repent because Jesus had not yet died for the sins of mankind. Actually, demanding repentance of Gentiles before the Ransom was given for their sins would have been premature since no basis for forgiveness of Gentile sins would have been legally available. So God left them in their ignorance until the appropriate time. However, this is a far cry from condemning every ignorant person to death simply because they are ignorant.

I don't have time to count them so I'll exaggerate, for the umpteenth time, I never said anything about "condemning every ignorant person to death."

People sound so smart when they quote multiple people in one post like that lol.

God is God! And may do as He likes. For one He may give grace for another with the same sin He can condemn. He does not have to explain, could be He didn't like the color of his/her eyes. All we can do is follow the Word of God. The question is DO YOU BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. If your answer is yes then what the young lady was trying to convince you of is of no importance. The Holy Spirit will guide you. Pray on it don't listen to us. God has a way of giving you the correct answer.

You have obviously missed that from the first post I have offered exceptions. I just don't agree it's as broad as you present it.

Perhaps you should clarrify your position in detail then.




Agreed.
But here is the kicker which can be gleaned from my first post. Let's say an atheist, even one hostile to God, raises their children to be hostile to God yet they demonstrate "things contained in the law," they themselves live by that "golden rule" I mentioned and teach their kids the same, Paul says they are "without excuse." There is no scriptural way around that Starman.

I am not recommending a way around the acceptance of Jesus as our savior. God does know that many should realize things but don't. However, the reference to people who don't realize these things and who are called inexcusable doesn't necessarily include EVERYONE who doesn't realize. If it did, then God would be an indiscriminate punisher based on an inflexible rule and inflexible rules inevitable lead to injustice due to their very inflexibility. Surely you can see this.




Again, I never said "all are condemned to death." And again, the bible clearly disagrees with you, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them."

Well, if you are saying one thing and meaning another then I guess you've created a veritable paradox.



You'll have to explain that further.
I have no problem with that, you just apply that factor of ignorance more broadly than I do and as I believe the scriptures do.

I think that essentially we agree but have misundderstood. You see me as saying that ignorance itself qualifies a person for eternal life? I saw you as saying that ALL ignorant people would be destroyed. Since ypoi now deny such a beliedf then there really isn't any controversy. : )

About clarifying my view I offer the following explanation.


The majority of mankind who have died in ignorance--agreed?

These ignorant ones will be resurrected so that they can be INFORMED about salvation through Jesus. Only after having been given that opportunity can a person be either granted eternal life or punished via eternal death. This opportunity is firmly based on the Ransom. Otherwise there would not be a basis to grant that opportunity to those who have died in ignorance or not knowing about Jesus.

Habakkuk 2:14
For the earth will be filled With the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, As the waters cover the sea.


Now, if you held the view I misunderstood you as holding then you would object on the grounds that all these evil people who died had no excuse. Correct? But since you never said such a thing then you have no objection on those grounds in reference to this concept. Right?


Remember, Jesus felt pity for the ignorant ones. In contrast the Pharisees classified them ALL as accursed because they lacked knowledge.


John 7:48-50 (New King James Version)

48 Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him? 49 But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed.”


BTW
Here is an interesting article on Jesus words concerning forgiveness based on ignorance:

The View From The Cross (http://www.homewithgod.com/Cards/viewfromthecross.shtml)


Here is another which comments on Paul's "inexcusable" statement.

Daily Reflections with Patrick Henry Reardon (http://www.touchstonemag.com/frpat/2006_01_15_frpatarchive.html)

Perhaps you should clarrify your position in detail then.

Just leave it at this, I don't believe "all are condemned to death" through ignorance. I just don't apply ignorance as broadly as you do, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them." We agree only God knows who is His, I just think it dangerous to put much emphasis on an "ignorance clause," especially since I can't find this second chance after death thing you speak of, only that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Just leave it at this, I don't believe "all are condemned to death" through ignorance. I just don't apply ignorance as broadly as you do, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them." We agree only God knows who is His, I just think it dangerous to put much emphasis on an "ignorance clause," especially since I can't find this second chance after death thing you speak of, only that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.


I am not applying ignorance in any way which contradicts the necessity to accept Jesus as our savior. Ignorance doesn't gain anyone eternal life. It does qualify a person though to a clarification so he can make an informed decision. To say that God does not clarify things for a person before he passes judgment is to accuse him of injustice. That in itself should be enough to reject the concept.

Also, I am not denying that there are people who are inexcusable; Obviously there are since Paul spoke of them under inspiration. However, saying that the condition of inexcusability is permanent and a no way out situation negates the fact that there are those who held inexcusable opinions which did eventually see the light. Paul also includes homosexuals as being inexcusable. Does that mean that all he considered all homosexuals beyond redemption? That he would see one and not preach to him because-after all--he is inexcusable? Idolaters too, he refers to as inexcusable. Does that mean that once inexcusable always inexcusable so don't even try to help them? Such a view doesn't harmonize with the rest of the Gospel where we are told to tell others about the Good News of God's Kingdom and of salvation via Jesus Christ.

Matthew 28:

19 Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”

MATTEW 24

14 And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.

NWT


About the resurrection, please understand that I know there are divergent views and am in no way judging those who hold them as saved, unsaved, Christian or non-Christian. That's for God to determine not me or any other human.

Please consider that a resurrection of the wicked in order to condemn them to death because they are wicked is redundant. They had already paid for their sins by dying.
It's like hanging a man for a crime, bringing him back to life so you can hang him again.
So the only just and logical reason to bring them back to life is to provide them with an opportunity to know about Jesus Ransom for their sins and give them a chance to make an INFORMED DECISION.


Also notice that if indeed the wicked were burning in hell, then they would have to be removed from the flames in order to be pronounced wicked, something they knew already as did God Himself, and then throw them back in to resume their agonies. The same applies to the righteous. If they had already received their reward and were alive in heavenly bliss, resurrecting them is both redundant impossible since they aren't dead.


Make sense to you? The alternative, a resurrection of those who are truly asleep in death [Ecclesiastes 9:5, Ezekiel 18:4 Romans 6:23] in order to familiarize them with Jesus is more in harmony with the rest of the scriptures and God's personality.


In any case, thank you for the very interesting discussion, your openness of mind, patience and decency.

Acts 17:11
These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.


God bless and be with you always.