[speechlesstx]

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."

[Starman]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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."

[cal823]

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

[beenaroundtheblock]

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.

[Starman]

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


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

Daily Reflections with Patrick Henry Reardon

[speechlesstx]

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.

[Starman]

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.