To LaHaye & Jenkins’ credit, they have said in interviews that the “Age 8 Rapture cutoff” is a literary device & that the age of accountability is probably a totally individual matter.
If people are saved without hearing the Gospel, why do we need missionaries & might they not do more harm than good in presenting the Gospel only to have it rejected by those who might otherwise by saved by living in the light they have?
Christ commanded his followers to spread his teachings throughout the world. He knew that dilemna & thought it would be better for all people in the long run for them to know his teachings rather than remain ignorant of them. And that it would be better for his followers to have the privilege of sharing his teachings & helping people trust him.
People being people, we frigged it up, which is why no one’s final salvation actually depends on us. The timing of their salvation perhaps, but not the final result- Whew!
I don’t think that Christian doctrine needs “an overhaul.” If God is eternal (which is what most Christians believe, I hope), then why would He need his laws updated?
I’m asking what Christians think. Obviiously, this is going to exclude other gods.
The Bible says that all of creation declares the glory of God (Psalm 19:1) and that the qualities of God can be cleary seen creation, “so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20). So there is not a single person who has ever lived who has not been witnessed to about God, since there is not a one of us who has lived, who has not lived in creation. So, since all of us have been told about God, those who do not believe, have in fact, rejected the Truth of God, and therefore do deserve eternal damnation. Romans 1:18-32 is a very good explanation of this. Check it out.
The Catholic position is that they are not going to hell. (Heck, even adult non-believers are not damned in the eyes of the RCC as long as they are following what they believed to be the call of God.)
As the cited link on Limbo notes, beginning with St. Augustine of Hippo, there was a tradition among various theologians within the church that baptism was physically necessary (dooming all the infants and righteous pagans). However, if you will note the whole article, the RCC never embraced that concept as a teaching of the church and has now rejected that idea.
Aldebaran, the priest with whom you spoke was parroting one tradition–but not the teachings of the church. You have not been damned from birth according to church teachings.
Of course, the question this raises is “believe what?”
If you are claiming that everyone has been taught (through the naturalistic processes of creation) to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” then you are simply playing word games in order to take delight in damning people. (And damning an infant who, lacking the capacity for understanding, cannot have heard or understood any message would make any god that did so a hateful demon.)
I was sort of mildly sarcastic when I said that I’m doomed since birth.
I wasn’t referring to my mother’s priest who was a very cultivated and very nice person. Our discussions were for me, as a child raised according good old Muslim tradition, very interesting… And in fact made me question also my religious teachers about what they told me. Which didn’t make their life easier, yet brought me the advantage of a critical approach of certain dogmas (in both religiouns) at a very young age.
And of course my mother’s priest never tried to upset me with such things as “you are doomed because you don’t believe Jesus is God” etc… I’m very sure of it that my father’s family or my mother herself wouldn’t have tolerated such. But looking back I don’t think this priest, with whom I’m still in contact, would ever say such a thing to anybody.
Yet there are many others who do so. But I guess critical questions about why they feel the urge to do this is something for an other discussion.
Is there a discussion on this board about baptism and related and the claim that this ritual stamps an “eternal mark” on the individual?
I think “non believer” refers in the context of this topic to person who doesn’t follow the Christian religion. Or maybe it this remark refers to followers of one of the monotheïstic religions.
People who worship for example a mountain because they take this mountain for the higher power, the god or whatever they call it, have found in this a way to worship what is their concept or understanding of the Creator.
I don’t have much time so I will try to respond fully and logically, but I’m not guaranteeing anything. I’m having a hard time understanding how you are coming to the third conclusion, that a person can’t be drawn to God through a missionary. Why not? If we can influence people for harm, we can certainly influence people for good.
c_carol, you didn’t quote me entirely. What I said was:
I think it’s very myopic to ignore the beliefs and rituals of specifically non-Christian people when asking a question like this. Since the child is a non-Christian, he’s not governed by Christian rules or morality.
Let me re-phrase the question to put it into perspective: would there be any debate on how a particular law in the United States applies to French citizens? No. The French have their own laws and rules that are specific to their country. US laws have no bearing on them. In the same way that the French don’t have to worry about American laws and Americans don’t have to worry about French laws, this theoretical child in African doesn’t have to worry about Christian concepts of the afterlife.
I didn’t say anything about God’s eternal Laws, I mentioned Christian doctrine, which I take to be humanity’s interpretation of those laws.
Your OP poses a logical puzzle; how could God who is just and righteous allow a child, thru no fault of its own, to end up in hell simply by not hearing about Christianity.
I would say it’s Christian doctrine that says a person goes to hell if they don’t hear the Christian message, rather than “God’s eternal Laws.” Looking back, it appears that tomndebb answered the question for the RCC (and probably for the Orthodox Churches, as well). This looks to be more of a problem for the Protestants rather than Christianity in general.
**
If you only wanted Christian responses, you should have said so in your OP.
Because you said that God was already there–that people can already hear God’s voice, even if they never hear a missionary. Are you saying that a missionary can do something that God can’t? That seems pretty counterintuitive to me.
Romans 10:14-17
How, then, can they call on the One they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”…Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
This is Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill in which he speaks to the Greeks about their worship of the UNKNOWN GOD. Paul names God Almighty as the One truly worthy of their worship.
From this and other verses (Dt 4:29,Ecc 3:11,Mt 7:7-8) it seems clear that those who truly seek God will find Him.
Frankly, I’d like some scriptural support for this posture; contrary to your assertion, Jesus declared:
The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in His name to all nations… Luke 24:46-47
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations…
In addition, in the Parable of the Weeds (Matt 13:24-30,37-43):
…The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom…
And of course, Rev. 5:7
…with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.
Scripture is very clear that the word of God is given to be preached to all men everywhere. It is a universal declaration of salvation.
Because the person who was explaining it to me said it was so. Your argument is with Elewyne, not with me.
And I do not accept quotations from any scripture as a theological argument. I’m looking for you (or anyone willing) to explain what I consider a glaring and horrific inconsistency in the Christian tradition.
