Conference yukon::christian

    Doth not nature itself teach you there is a God?

      Romans 1, I believe states that the revelation of creation
      can be sufficient.  I do agree that there are seasons where
      it is inexcusable to not have more knowledge (such as Noah's
      time), but Rom. 1 says that God sufficiently revealed Himself
      through creation.
    
      Anyone who responds to the word of Jesus Christ by faith is
      saved.
    
      Anyone who responds by faith to a revelation of creation has
      responded by faith to his Savior Jesus Christ for it is a 
      response to His word.
    
      His understanding may be so partial as to not even know the 
      name of Christ or of the cross, however, such a person responded
      by faith to the word of His Creator, which Creator is His Lord
      and Savior Jesus Christ.
    
    						Tony

>    Doth not nature itself teach you there is a God?

Wisdom of Solomon 13:1-9 (King James Version)

Surely vain are all men by nature, who are ignorant of God,
and could not out of the good things that are seen know him that
is: neither by considering the works did they acknowledge the
workmaster;

But deemed either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the
circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the lights of
heaven, to be the gods which govern the world.

With whose beauty if they being delighted took them to be
gods; let them know how much better the Lord of them is: for the
first author of beauty hath created them.

But if they were astonished at their power and virtue, let
them understand by them, how much mightier he is that made them.

For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures
proportionably the maker of them is seen.

But yet for this they are the less to be blamed: for they
peradventure err, seeking God, and desirous to find him.

For being conversant in his works they search him diligently,
and believe their sight: because the things are beautiful that
are seen.

Howbeit neither are they to be pardoned.

For if they were able to know so much, that they could aim at
the world; how did they not sooner find out the Lord thereof?



(Same thing, NRSV:)

For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature;
 and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know
  the one who exists,
   nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works;

But they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air,
 or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water,
  or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world.

If through delight in the beauty of these things
 people assumed them to be gods,
  let them know how much better than these is their Lord,
   for the author of beauty created them.

And if people were amazed at their power and working,
 let them perceive from them
  how much more powerful is the one who formed them.

For from the greatness and beauty of created things
 comes a corresponding perception of their Creator.

Yet these people are little to be blamed,
 for perhaps they go astray
  while seeking God and desiring to find him.

For while they live among his works,
 they keep searching,
  and they trust in what they see,
   because the things they see are beautiful.

Yet again, not even they are to be excused;
 for if they had the power to know so much
  that they could investigate the world,
   how did they fail to find sooner the Lord of these things?

    I believe Romans 1:18-23 (see also 2:14-16) really only applies to the
    rare geographies where the Gospel of Jesus Christ hasn't been preached. 
    The modern world is without excuse.

	Mike, can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

    Sure, it is because of the context of what is written in those 2
    chapters.  The book of Romans is the Holy Spirit through Paul's 
    cornerstone case for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace 
    through faith in God the Son and His vicarious atonement.  In the first 
    2 chapters, the Holy Spirit through Paul brings the whole world into 
    accountability.  
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        I do see things differently.  I don't think geography is
        the litmus, I think the litmus is simply how much light
        one is accounted for.
    
        Just as a hypothetical.  You could have say a Jewish person
        who grew up in WWII Germany and all the professed Christians
        he knew were throwing her in Auschwitz.  This person may have
        responded to the God as her parents explained her and responded
        by faith to that light.
    
        Should this person have known the cross?  Is this person 
        accountable given her unique circumstances?  I don't think so,
        but ultimately, I am a whole lot more comfortable letting God
        judge and not myself.
    
        One last thing.  Paul does refer to those responding to the
        cross as being saved.  BUT, exegesis would indicate that his
        audience is the hearers of his letter.  I wouldn't want to
        force a universal application especially in the light of
        Rom 1,2.
    
        God knows the heart and thus the level of accountability of
        truth.
    
        I don't.
    
    						Tony
                                                        

Overview:

 18-32.  The Apostle is saying that the righteousness of God (= justness) 
 can only come about through faith in Jesus Christ - and that neither Jews 
 nor Gentiles possess this righteousness.  He develops this point up as far 
 as 3:20.

 In the present passage he describes two stages in the position of the 
 Gentiles.  In the first (vv.  18-23) he points out their blameworthiness, 
 and then in the second he goes on (vv.  24-32) to speak about the 
 punishment of their sins.  Justice as the righteousness of God refers to 
 God's action of saving sinful man by pouring his grace into him; God's 
 "wrath" is the punishment which the Almighty inflicts on him who persists 
 in sin.  For, as St Thomas says, "Anger and the like are ascribed to God 
 by an analogy drawn from their effects.  Because it is characterisfic of 
 anger that it stimulates men to requite wrong, divine retribufion is 
 analogically termed anger" (Summa theologiae, I, q.  3, a.  2 ad 2).

 There is a connexion between faith and righteousness, on the one hand, and 
 sin and God's wrath, on the other.  This Pauline teaching ties in with the 
 last thing St John the Baptist is recorded as saying in bearing witness to 
 Christ: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey 
 the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" (Jn 
 3:36).

 Christian teaching often points out how God's desire that all sinners be 
 saved (the "righteousness of God" as instrument of salvation) combines 
 with his punishment of sin (the "wrath of God").  How perfect justice 
 interfaces with perfect mercy is ultimately a mystery.

Detail of 18-23:

 18.  "Who by their wickedness suppress the truth": commenting on these 
 words St Thomas writes: "Genuine knowledge of God has the effect of 
 inclining a person to goodness.  However, this knowledge of God can be 
 frustrated, as if enchained, by a person's attachment to vice" (Commentary 
 on Rom,adloc.)

 Clearly St Paul is speaking here of those Gentiles who do know about God 
 but who fail to appreciate their good fortune; their knowledge of God does 
 not produce the result which should naturally flow from it - an upright 
 life.  We can see from what Paul says that man is naturally religious.  He 
 has a knowledge of God which is not just theoretical: it has implications 
 for his whole life because it implies that he is intimately united to God.  
 When a person does not follow the impulse of his very nature he is guilty 
 of unrighteousness, for he should render God homage for being his Creator.

 "All men, because they are persons, that is, beings endowed with reason 
 and free will and therefore bearing personal responsibility, are both 
 impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the 
 truth, especially religious truth.  They are also bound to adhere to the 
 truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance 
 with the demands of truth" (Vatican II, Dignitatis humanae, 2).

 Our dependence on God does not mean that we are less than free; on the 
 contrary, it is rejection of all religious duties that leads to the 
 shameful slaveries which Paul now goes on to list, for "religion is the 
 greatest rebellion of a person who does not want to live like an animal, 
 who is not satisfied and will not rest until he reaches and comes to know 
 his Creator" (J Escriva', Conversations, 73)

 19-20.  It is possible to know about God without his having to reveal 
 himself in a supernatural way; we know this from the book of Wisdom (Wis 
 13:1-9), which says that pagans, who, led astray by the beauty and power 
 and greatness of created things, took these things for gods, should have 
 known that all this perfection etc.  came from their Author, for "from the 
 greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of 
 their Creator" (Wis 13:5).  This knowledge of God, which we term 
 "natural", is not something easy to attain; but it can be attained and it 
 is the best form of preparation for accepting supernaturally revealed 
 truths, and for disposing us to honour and worship our Creator.  Moreover, 
 Revelation confirms the certainty which natural knowledge gives: "The 
 heavens are telling the glory of God", the Psalmist exclaims, "and the 
 firmament proclaims his handiwork" (Ps 19:2).  St Augustine reminds us 
 that traces of the Creator are to be found in man, and, as we all know 
 from experience, we have been made to know and love God and therefore our 
 heart is restless until it rests in him (cf.  Confessions, I, 1, 1).

 To sum up, we can say with St Thomas Aquinas that, in the natural order, 
 man has two ways of discovering the existence of God - one, through 
 reason, that inner light by means of which a person acquires knowledge; 
 the other, through certain external pointers to the wisdom of God, that 
 is, created things perceivable through the senses: these things are like a 
 book on which are imprinted traces of God (cf.  Commentary on Rom, 1:6).

 Whichever of these routes is taken, "God, the origin and end of all 
 things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason 
 from the things that he created" (Vatican I, Dei Filius, chap.  2).

 Recalling the core of Christian teaching about the nature of man, the 
 Second Vatican Council states that "sacred Scripture teaches that man was 
 created `in the image of God' as able to know and love his Creator", and 
 that "the dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to 
 communion with God.  The invitation to converse with God is addressed to 
 man as soon as he comes into being.  For if man exists it is because God 
 has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in 
 existence" (Gaudium et spes, 12 and 19).  The human mind, therefore, even 
 when relying on its own resources can grasp various truths concerning God 
 - first of all, his existence, and secondly, certain of his attributes, 
 which St Paul sums up here as his "invisible nature", "eternal power" and 
 "deity".  By reflecting on the created world, we can learn about some of 
 God's perfections; but, St Thomas Aquinas comments, only in heaven will we 
 be able to see that these various perfections are all one with the divine 
 essence.  This is why St Paul talks about God's "invisible nature".  
 Contemplation of the works of creation leads us to posit the presence of 
 an ever-existing Creator, and brings us to discover his "eternal power".  
 Finally, the word "deity" implies that God is transcendent: he is the 
 Cause, superior to all other causes, and in him everything finds its 
 explanation arid ultimate purpose

 The fact that it is possible to know God by the use of natural reason 
 means that pagans who chose not to worship him were blameworthy.  Their 
 position is comparable to that of contemporary atheists and unbelievers 
 who deny or doubt the existence of God despite the fact that as human 
 beings they do know him in some way in the depths of their conscience.  
 The culpability of pagans as of modern unbelievers ("they are without 
 excuse") derives from the fact that they fail to accept that God is 
 knowable through the use of human reason; they both commit the same fault 
 - that of refusing to render worship to God.

 Of course, to some degree the attitude of atheists can be explained by 
 historical, environmental, personal and other factors.  However, it should 
 not be forgotten that these do not justify atheism.  However, "those who 
 wilfully try to drive God from their heart and to avoid all questions 
 about religion, not following the biddings of their conscience, are not 
 free from blame" (Vatican II, Gaudium et spes, 19).

 21-23.  The Gentiles knew God but they failed to give him his due - to 
 worship him in a spirit of adoration and thanksgiving.  As a result they 
 fell into polytheism (belief in a multiplicity of gods) and idolatry, as 
 St Paul vividly describes: they worshipped images depicting men and women 
 (the Greeks gave their gods human form) or animals (as was the case in 
 Egyptian and other eastern religions).

 In our own time idolatry does not take that form, but there are practices 
 which can properly be called idolatrous.  Man is naturally religious and 
 if he does not worship the true God he necessarily has to find other 
 things to take God's place.  Sometimes it is himself that man makes the 
 object of worship: the Second Vatican Council points out that "with some 
 people it is their exaggerated idea of man that causes their faith to 
 languish; they are more prone, it would seem, to affirm man than to deny 
 God ...  .].  Those who profess this kind of atheism maintain that freedom 
 consists in this, that man is an end to himself and the sole maker, with 
 supreme control, of his own history" (Gaudium et spes, 19 and 20).  It 
 also happens that people, by becoming enslaved to them, make gods out of 
 the good things created by God for man's benefit - money, power, 
 sensuality.

			--Faculty of Theology, University of Navarre

Psalms 19:1

"The heavens are telling of the glory of God; 
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands."

In Paul's epistle to the Romans 1:18-20 we see:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God
made it evident to them.  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."

Concerning the clarity of revelation, John Calvin, a Reformer and theologian 
of the 16th century, wrote the following in his "Institutes of the Christian 
Religion":

"The final goal of the blessed life, moreover rests in the knowledge of 
God (cf. John 17:3).  Lest anyone, then, be excluded from access to
happiness, he not only sowed in men's minds that seed of religion of
which we have spoken but revealed himself and daily discloses himself
in the whole workmanship of the universe.  As a consequence, men cannot
open their eyes without being compelled to see him.  Indeed, his 
essence is incomprehensible; hence, his divineness far escapes all
human perception.  But upon his individual works he has engraved
unmistakable marks of his glory, so clear and so prominent that even
unlettered and stupid folk cannot plead the excuse of ignorance."

And more from Calvin's "Institutes":


"There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an
awareness of divinity.  This we take to be beyond controversy.
To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance,
God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his
divine majesty.  Ever renewing its memory, he repeatedly sheds fresh
drops.  Since, therefore, men one and all perceive that there is a
God and that he is their Maker, they are condemned by their own
testimony because they have failed to honor him and to consecrate
their lives to his will.

Indeed even idolatry is ample proof of this conception.  We know
how man does not willingly humble himself so as to place other
creatures over himself.  Since then, he prefers to worship wood
and stone rather than to be thought of as having no God, clearly
this is a most vivid impression of a divine being.  So impossible
is it to blot this from man's mind that natural disposition would
be more easily altered, as altered indeed it is when man volunatrily
sinks from his natural haughtiness to the very depths in order to
honor God!

I confess, indeed, that in order to hold men's minds in greater
subjection, clever men have devised very many things in religion
by which to inspire the common folk with reverence and to strike
them with terror.  But they would never have achieved this if men's
minds had not already been imbued with a firm conviction about
God, from which the inclination toward religion springs as from
a seed...If, indeed, there were some in the past, and today not
a few appear, who deny God exists, yet willy-nilly they from time
to time feel an inkling of what they desire not to believe...Indeed,
they seek out every subterfuge to hide themselves from the Lord's
presence, and to efface it again from their minds.  But in spite
of themselves they are always entrapped.  Although it may
sometimes seem to vanish for a moment, it returns at once and
rushes in with new force.

Men of sound judgement will always be sure that a sense of
divinity which can never be effaced is engraved upon men's minds.
Indeed, the perversity of the impious, who though they struggle
furiously are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of
God, is abundant testimony that this conviction, namely that
there is some God, is naturally inborn in all, and is fixed deep
within, as it were in the very marrow...the world (something will
have to be said of this a little later) tries as far as it is able
to cast away all knowledge of God, and by every means to corrupt
the worship of him.  I only say that though the stupid harshness
in their minds, which the impious eagerly conjure to reject God,
wastes away, yet the sense of divinity, which they greatly wished
to have extinguished, thrives and presently burgeons.

Experience teaches that the seed of religion has been divinely
planted in all men.  but barely one man in a hundred can be
found who nourishes in his own heart what he has conceived; and
not even one in whom it matures, much less bears fruit in its
season [cf. Ps. 1.3].  Now some lose themselves in their own
superstition, while others of their own evil intention revolt
from God, yet all fall away from true knowledge of him...Indeed,
vanity joined with pride can be detected in the fact that, in
seeking God, miserable men do not rise above themselves as they
should, but measure him by the yardstick of their own carnal
stupidity, and neglect sound investigation; thus out of curiosity
they fly off into empty speculations.  They do not therefore
apprehend God as he offers himself, but imagine him as they have
fashioned him in their own presumption....Indeed, whatever they
afterward attempt by way of worship or service to God, they cannot
bring as tribute to him, for they are worshiping not God but a
figment and a dream of their own heart.  Paul eloquently notes this
wickedness; "Striving to be wise, they make fools of themselves"
[Romans 1:22].He had said before that "they became futile in their
thinking" (Rom. 1:21).  In order, however, that no one might excuse
guilt, he adds that they are justly blinded.  For not content with
sobriety but claiming for themselves more than is right, they
wantonly bring darkness upon themselves - in fact, they become
fools in their empty and perverse haughtiness.  From this it follows
that their stupidity is not excusable, since it is caused not only by
vain curiosity but by an inordinate desire to know more that is
fitting, joined with a false confidence."

			Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)
Chapter I

Of the Holy Scripture

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence
do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men
unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God,
and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased
the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to
declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better
preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure
establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the
flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly
unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5]
those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now
ceased.[6]

[1] ROM 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature
the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto
themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts,
their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while
accusing or else excusing one another; 1:19 Because that which may be known
of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 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. PSA 19:1 The heavens declare the
glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. 2 Day unto day
uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3 There is no
speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. ROM 1:32 Who knowing
the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of
death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. 2:1
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for
wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that
judgest doest the same things.

[2] 1CO 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew
not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that
believe. 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual
things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of
the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know
them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[3] HEB 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time
past unto the fathers by the prophets.

[4] PRO 22:19 That thy trust may be in the Lord, I have made known to thee
this day, even to thee. 20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in
counsels and knowledge, 21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the
words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that
send unto thee? LUK 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect
understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in
order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty
of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. ROM 15:4 For whatsoever
things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we
through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. MAT 4:4 But
he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but
by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 7 Jesus said unto
him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 10 Then
saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. ISA 8:19 And when
they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and
unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto
their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony:
if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light
in them.

[5] 2TI 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in
Christ Jesus. 2PE 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto
ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place,
until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.

[6] HEB 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time
past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken
unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also
he made the worlds.

    Romans 10:9
    That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in
    your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
    
    
    Jill

      re: -1
    
      Yes, this is true!
    
      Is Romans 10:9 all inclusive?
    
      For example, I might say that if you are an even number,
      you are a number.
    
      Does it then follow that if you are an odd number, you
      are not a number?
    
      There will be those that never knew His name.
    
      But, actually, in a sense they did for they knew His character
      and Moses has something to say about that.   Maybe that is what
      that verse is talking about (come to think about it).
    
    						Tony

    Saying that its a beautiful sunrise is way different from confessing
    that Jesus is Lord.
    
    
    Jill
    

 AMEN!

    Yes but saying that there is a beautiful sunrise and thanking the
    creator for it is very different, no?

.12� There will be those that never knew His name.
.12�       But, actually, in a sense they did for they knew His character

Right on, Tony.  I liked the analogy, too.  Thanks

							Andrew

    re .15
    
       Yes but saying that there is a beautiful sunrise and thanking the
       creator for it is very different, no?
    
    It depends on who you think the creator is!  :-)
    
    
    Jill
    

    re .16
    
    One of Frank Pereti's children's books is about these people who have
    come to know and worship Jesus simply by God showing them things by
    example.  They are an isolated people.  They never had a missionary
    there.  They just worshiped Jesus.  He showed them all about salvation
    through examples.  They had it all right and the desire of their hearts
    was to know His Name.  
    
    Its a wonderful book.
    
    
    Jill
    

    .18
    
    But is it Biblical?  
    
    jeff

    re .19
    
    He supports all he says with scripture.  Its a good book.
    
    
    Jill
    

    
    I'm sure it is a good book.  I like Peretti's stories.
    
    The Bible is rather clear that:
    
    1. All men are accountable to God because all men know that God exists
       through God's creation of them and of the earth around us.
    
    2. That the preaching of the gospel of Christ - the bonafide, historical
       gospel - is the only method God uses to bring people to salvation.
    
    It is unbiblical to believe or suggest that there is any way to be
    saved outside of responding to the biblical gospel of Christ.
    
    jeff

Re: .21  (Jeff Benson)
    
>    The Bible is rather clear that:
>    
>    1. All men are accountable to God because all men know that God exists
>       through God's creation of them and of the earth around us.
>    
>    2. That the preaching of the gospel of Christ - the bonafide, historical
>       gospel - is the only method God uses to bring people to salvation.
>    
>    It is unbiblical to believe or suggest that there is any way to be
>    saved outside of responding to the biblical gospel of Christ.
    
Thank you, Jeff.  

And I would like to add that there is no reason to apologize for speaking
the truth on this issue.  We need to keep in the forefront of our minds that
everyone since the fall (except Jesus) deserves to be condemned on account of
their sinfulness by nature and deed.  We should consider it a wonder that
anyone at all is saved. 

    Where does it say that the gospel has to be verbally presented by a
    believer?
    
    Jill

    
    1 Corinthians 1:21  For after that in the wisdom of God the world by
    		wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of 
    		preaching to save them that believe.
    
    

    
    
    Even in Jonah's time the Lord used preaching for repentance
    salvation.  Jonah knew the mercy of God and that's why he ran,
    he didn't want them to be saved due to the preaching the God
    wanted him to do.
    
    A scripture in the new testament also backs this up.
    
    Jonah 3:2  Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it
    		the preaching that I bid thee.
    
    Matthew 12:41  The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this
    	generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the
    	preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
    
    

    
    Also,
    
    2 Timothy 4:17  Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and
    	strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, 
    	and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of 
    	the mouth of the lion.
    
    
    There is also the great commision.
    
    Titus 1:3  But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching,
    	which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our
    	Saviour;
    
    
    Mark 16:15  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach
    		the gospel to every creature.
    
    

    Of course preaching the gospel is in the bible and a wonderful thing.
    
    My question was do you need to be preached to in order to be saved?
    
    Look at Paul/Saul.  Jesus showed himself to him and then he believed. 
    Seeing is believing.  :-)
    
    
    Jill
    

    
    >My question was do you need to be preached to in order to be saved?
    
    I can't think of an instance in scripture which supports this method.
    The ones that come to my mind support salvation by preaching/hearing
    the word.
    
    >Look at Paul/Saul.  Jesus showed himself to him and then he believed.
    >    Seeing is believing.  :-)
    
    In this instance Paul/Saul fell down when the light shined.
    Also, if you look at the scripture,the Lord spoke, Saul questioned
    if it was the Lord, the Lord spoke again stating who He was causing
    Saul to tremble.
    
    Acts 9:3  And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly
    		there shined round about him a light from heaven:
     Acts 9:4  And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto 
    		him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
    Acts 9:5  And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am
    		Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick 
    		against the pricks.
    Acts 9:6  And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou
    		have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go 
    		into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
    
    
    
    
    

    If I recall correctly, Saul was the only one who heard the voice.  The
    men with him saw the light but didn't hear the voice.
    
    Getting back to the book I was talking about.  How am I to know that
    these people didn't hear the Lord tell them about salvation?  The
    discussion here seems to say that unless you hear audibly the word then
    it isn't enough.  
    
    Jill
    

The scripture I immediately thought of when Jeff posted this was Rom 10:13-14:

 "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.  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?"

I was personally uncomfortable with Jeff's original posting.  Jesus is the only
way to the Father - absolutely.  But I'm not so sure that Jesus doesn't have
some sort of plan to reach those who do not have the opportunity to hear His
gospel.

However, I don't have scriptural backup for this position, and don't have time
to research it right now, so I chose not to say anything.  And I won't try to
defend the idea now - as I said, I can't currently back it up.  It's certainly
possible that I CAN'T back it up - that my 'sense' is wrong and this will be an
area in which I'll have to adjust my thinking to be in line with the Word.  Or
perhaps with more study I would find other things in the Word which would
confirm my 'sense.'

But, pending that, I really have to just let stand the assertion that one must
hear the gospel to be saved by it.

Paul 

    
    
    >If I recall correctly, Saul was the only one who heard the voice.  The
    >    men with him saw the light but didn't hear the voice.
    
    Acts 9:7  And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,
    		hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
    
    This is the only verse that makes mention of the men in this particular
    instance.  They heard a voice but didn't see anything.
    
    > Getting back to the book I was talking about.  How am I to know that
    > these people didn't hear the Lord tell them about salvation?  The
    > discussion here seems to say that unless you hear audibly the word
    > then it isn't enough.
    
    Very good question.  You said in 47.18 that they worshiped Jesus and
    God showed them these things by example.  Christ showed us how to 
    live by example as well.
    
    If I would have to theorize here, it would seem that perhaps there
    was a person in that tribe whom God chose just like he chose 
    Abraham.  Having accepted Christ as Saviour in a similar experiance
    like Saul, this believer would now have the indwelling of the Holy
    Spirit.  In essense the gospel and truth would still be preached and
    taught but revealed by the Holy Spirit.  The proof or validity here
    is that it aligns with scripture still, even in there instance where
    there wasn't any.  
    
    As I write this it kind of sounds a bit way out there, but the 
    written word has been with us since Moses and preaching has existed
    from the begining from Adam all the way Moses.
    
    						-JimGle-
    

>    Getting back to the book I was talking about.  How am I to know that
>    these people didn't hear the Lord tell them about salvation?  The
>    discussion here seems to say that unless you hear audibly the word then
>    it isn't enough.  
    
>    Jill
    
    Isn't the book fiction?
    
    jeff
    

    re .31
    
    Actually thats almost exactly what happened in the book.  Are you sure
    you haven't read it? :-)  The tribal chief had an experience like this.
    And yes, the book is fiction.
    
    
    Jill
    

The Bible makes it clear that God is just.

A just God would not fail to provide a way for every human he created to
have the opportunity to learn of his salvation and to come to the Father
through Jesus.

Not everything is revealed to us.  Everything _we_ need to know is revealed,
and we have the responsibility to be instruments of God's revelation to the
whole world.  But let us not be so filled with pride that we believe that
God will not be able to save those whom we do not reach -- God is, after
all, all-powerful.

A hint of how God could reach those who never have the Gospel preached is
contained in the accounts of Jesus preaching to the departed during the
time between his crucifixion and resurrection.  A perfectly biblically based
_speculation_ is that at that opportunity, he was outside our concept of
time, and had the chance to speak to everyone who had not heard the Gospel,
everyone who ever existed from the beginning to the ending of time.

/john

    re: .33
    
    So ultimately the gospel was being preached according to this
    book but the starting point was supernatural from the Lord due
    to the absence of the written word and any type of outside contact.
    
    This is a nice story, but the danger is that this type of thing is
    more likely to be the exception and not the rule.  
    
    Getting back to what someone said earlier, in this country there
    will be no excuse since we have the written word and there are very
    few instances where someone is going to be so isolated that the Lord
    couldn't send someone to preach.
    
    					-JimGle-
    
    P.S. No I didn't read the book.
    

Re: .34  (John Covert)

>A hint of how God could reach those who never have the Gospel preached is
>contained in the accounts of Jesus preaching to the departed during the
>time between his crucifixion and resurrection.  

A common misunderstanding.  

1 Peter 3:19 does not say that Jesus preached to any dead person between when
he died and when he rose.  In fact, that would contradict Hebrews 9:27, which
says that man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment. 

What 1 Peter 3:19 is conveying is that Jesus *by the Spirit* (as opposed to
in the flesh) preached in the days of Noah.  The fact that those people are
dead and are now "in prison" is a parenthetical point.

The other common misunderstanding from 1 Peter 3:19 is the fallacious notion
that Jesus went to hell. 

re .36

Neither of those notions are necessarily fallacious; and the fact that
Jesus went to the place of the departed spirits (aka hell, but not the
hellfire of damnation) is the teaching of the apostles, handed down in
the Apostles' Creed, and provable by the most sure warrant of scripture.

/john

    
>    My question was do you need to be preached to in order to be saved?
    
 
 See Romans 10:14





 Jim    

>The Bible makes it clear that God is just.
    
    He certainly is just but his justice is not what we must count on for
    all of us are justly condemned. 

>A just God would not fail to provide a way for every human he created to
>have the opportunity to learn of his salvation and to come to the Father
>through Jesus.
    
    Your assertion is not biblical.  Justice does not require salvation, 
    justice requires judgement which would lead to condemnation for all of 
    humanity.  This is what the Bible teaches.

>Not everything is revealed to us.  Everything _we_ need to know is revealed,
>and we have the responsibility to be instruments of God's revelation to the
>whole world.  But let us not be so filled with pride that we believe that
>God will not be able to save those whom we do not reach -- God is, after
>all, all-powerful.
    
    It is not pride which drives belief here but Biblical revelation.  It
    is pride which suggests man's innate goodness when the Bible says
    exactly the opposite.  It is a prideful belief in man's innate goodness 
    which leads to the fallacious belief that all those unreached people are
    innocent, in spite of their actions, by virtue of the lack of
    an opportunity to be forgiven for their sinful actions.

>A hint of how God could reach those who never have the Gospel preached is
>contained in the accounts of Jesus preaching to the departed during the
>time between his crucifixion and resurrection.  A perfectly biblically based
>_speculation_ is that at that opportunity, he was outside our concept of
>time, and had the chance to speak to everyone who had not heard the Gospel,
>everyone who ever existed from the beginning to the ending of time.
    
    It is not Biblically necessary that Jesus actually went into some 
    intermediate place and preached the gospel. In fact, it is actually 
    contradictory to several specific biblical passages.  Biblical
    Christianity believes that all those saved prior to Christ were
    saved by faith in God's promised provision - the Messiah.  All those
    saved after Christ's birth are saved by the promise - the Messiah.  We
    today look back at the promise.  Those preceding Christ looked forward
    to the promise.  It was and is that looking, that trusting in God's
    promise alone - the Messiah - which saves. 

    jeff

    re .34
    
        A hint of how God could reach those who never have the Gospel
        preached is contained in the accounts of Jesus preaching to the
        departed during the time between his crucifixion and resurrection.
        A perfectly biblically based _speculation_ is that at that
        opportunity, he was outside our concept of time, and had the
        chance to speak to everyone who had not heard the Gospel, everyone
        who ever existed from the beginning to the ending of time.
    
    I like this.  What *I* heard was that Jesus came back to preach to
    people after his death.  If He could do it then I see no reason why He
    can't still do this today.  He is God you know.  :-)
    
    re .35, .38
    
        This is a nice story, but the danger is that this type of thing is
        more likely to be the exception and not the rule.
    
        Romans 10:14
        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?
    
    Of course this is the exception and not the rule!  We are told to go
    and preach the gospel to the nations!
    
    However as John said in 47.34
    
        A hint of how God could reach those who never have the Gospel
        preached is contained in the accounts of Jesus preaching to the
        departed during the time between his crucifixion and resurrection.
        A perfectly biblically based _speculation_ is that at that
        opportunity, he was outside our concept of time, and had the
        chance to speak to everyone who had not heard the Gospel, everyone
        who ever existed from the beginning to the ending of time.
    
    
    Jill
    

Re: .37  (John Covert)

>Neither of those notions are necessarily fallacious; and the fact that
>Jesus went to the place of the departed spirits (aka hell, but not the
>hellfire of damnation) is the teaching of the apostles, handed down in
>the Apostles' Creed, and provable by the most sure warrant of scripture.

Scripture reference, please?

>Scripture reference, please?

You'll claim they mean something different, so I'm not going to bother.

I interpret them in the light of the teaching of the apostles, as contained
in the apostles' creed, and as taught by holy church, whose interpretation
of scripture I hold to be more clearly inspired by the Holy Spirit than
yours.

/john

>Scripture reference, please?

>>You'll claim they mean something different, so I'm not going to bother.
    
    Good for you, John.

>>I interpret them in the light of the teaching of the apostles, as contained
>>in the apostles' creed, and as taught by holy church, whose interpretation
>>of scripture I hold to be more clearly inspired by the Holy Spirit than
>>yours.

>>/john
    
    I applaud your complete honesty, John.  However, I would offer to you
    that Garth (and several others here) would not be leaning (I hope) on
    solely their own interpretation in the assessment of whatever Scripture
    you would offer.  We (Protestants) too have a wealth of gifted men to
    reference for a more inspired understanding of Scripture.
    
    jeff

Re: .42  (John Covert)

>            -< There are at least four or five explicit references >-
>
>>Scripture reference, please?
>
>You'll claim they mean something different, so I'm not going to bother.

Then let me claim away.  If you are confident in the authority of the
Roman/Anglican Catholic Church, then let them stand their own ground,
and let the readership decide for themselves.

Now, what are the "four or five explicit references"?

Re: .43  (Jeff Benson)

>    that Garth (and several others here) would not be leaning (I hope) on
>    solely their own interpretation in the assessment of whatever Scripture
>    you would offer.  We (Protestants) too have a wealth of gifted men to
>    reference for a more inspired understanding of Scripture.
    
FYI, while I don't accept the apostolic authority of the Roman Catholic Church,
I don't accept the label "protestant," either.  I do not belong to an historic
"protestant" denomination, and was not discipled by any "protestant" ministry.
I also have not chosen to make it my business to "protest" the Roman Catholic
Church. 

Just a nit.

Taken together with the whole of scripture and the witness of the Apostles
as recorded in the Apostles' Creed (a document I consider to have the same
authority as scripture itself), the following passages are considered
relevant to the scriptural Truth that Jesus did descend to the place of
the departed spirits (where else could he have been when he when he was
dead for three days?).

Eph 4:9-10, Acts 3:15, Rom 8:11, 1 Cor 15:20, Heb 13:20, 1 Pet 3:18-19,
Phil 2:10, Acts 2:24, Rev 1:18, Eph 4:9, Pss 6:6, 88:11-13, 89:49, 1 Sam
28:19, Ezek 32:17-32, Lk 16:22-26, Mt 27:52-53, 1 Pet 4:6, Jn 5:25, Mt 12:40,
Rom 10:7, Eph 4:9, Heb 2:14-15, Acts 3:15, Rev 1:18, Phil 2:10.

/john

Re: .46  (John Covert)

You have chosen to continue to debate me on this subject by posting a host
of scripture references in defense of your position.  I have read all these,
and am working on a thorough rebuttal.

In the mean time, a question came to mind that I want to ask you:

If Jesus died and went to hell to preach to spirits "in prison" for three
days, then how is it that he told the thief on the cross "I tell you the
truth, today you will be with me in paradise."?

>If Jesus died and went to hell to preach to spirits "in prison" for three
>days, then how is it that he told the thief on the cross "I tell you the
>truth, today you will be with me in paradise."?

"In prison"?  I didn't say that.

Wherever Jesus is, there is paradise.

But let me ask you this:  Was this man exempt from waiting for the final
judgment on the last day?

Was this man given some special grace which allowed him to go to
heaven/paradise "today" (before the final judgment)?  Or does paradise mean
something different -- does it mean the place of the departed spirits that
I have been talking about, where Jesus preached to those who had not yet heard
the Gospel?  Did that place (Gehenna) become paradise at the moment Jesus
died because of his presence there, preaching the Gospel of salvation to
those willing to listen?

Or is the concept of "today" and "the last day" irrelevant after death,
outside the physical world, where time no longer has the meaning we place
on it?

/john

reply: .13

Well, let me pose a hypothetical.

Suppose a Himalayan walked atop the mighty mountains and observed 
the awesome scene.  Suppose he also was caught up in observing the
sky during a brilliant starlit night.

Suppose the Holy Spirit was speaking to his heart, but couldn't
speak real fully because this man did not have a whole lot of
objective truth with which to lay hold upon.

Suppose the man's response was, "I know there is a Great Spirit.
My heart is WARMED by this revelation of your love.  My Lord and
My God!  I choose this day to serve You!"

OK, who did this man confess as Lord?

Jill, if you think 'phonics' is everything, I suppose this man did
not confess Jesus as Lord.  But, if you think MEANING is what counts,
this man most surely confessed Jesus as Lord for he confessed to his
Creator who is Jesus.

Lets take it a step further.  What is he accountable for?  Is he not
accountable for the light he had the opportunity to receive?  Is your
concept of divinity one that is inclusive of one who condemns partially
on the basis of a person not receiving light because he lacked oppor-
tunity???

Is that the God you serve???

Well, (if so) I am VERY comfortable agreeing to disagree!

							Tony

      People have quoted Romans 10:14, but they have not inserted
      other texts which lend to the intended meaning of the author
      (Paul).  
    
      Such as...
    
      Romans 10:17-18
      So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
      But I say, have they not heard?   Yes indeed:
      "Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
       And their words to the end of the world."
    
      OK, so faith (saving faith obviously) comes by hearing and 
      hearing by the word.
    
      Well, what word???
    
      Paul then quotes Psalm 19:4.  Lets go to Psalm 19 for a fuller
      explanation.
    
      Psalm 19:1-4
      The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows
      His handiwork.
      Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals 
      knowledge.
      There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.
      Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words
      to the end of the world.
    
      What word is that???  That is creation.  Clearly.
    
      Romans 1:18-20
      For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
      and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
      because what may be known of God is manifest in them for God has
      shown it to them.
    
      [How?  How has God shown it to them???]
    
      For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are
      clearly seen, BEING UNDERSTOOD BY [by what???] THE THINGS THAT
      ARE MADE.  Even His eternal power and Godhead so that they are
      without excuse.
    
      There is a lot of talk about a 'formula.'  I submit that the formula
      is this.  We are saved by the word.  The word cleanses our hearts.
      God accounts us as righteous as Christ Himself when anyone has
      received ANY of that word by faith.  And if any person has done
      just that, the word has begun the work of changing the heart to
      be like Christ's heart.
    
      Furthermore, we have seen that the word of creation is the word of
      Christ and is a word that, if received by faith, has the power to
      transform the heart.
    
      Yes, it is a smidgeon of the full picture.  Yes, it is not enough
      to completely transform the heart.  Yes, it is only a shadow, BUT
      is that not all we have received?
    
      Hebrews 10:1-4
      For the law having a shadow of the good things to come and not the
      verey image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices 
      which they offer continually year by year make those who approach 
      perfect.
      For then would they not have ceased to be offered?  For the
      worshippers, once purged, would have HAD NO MORE CONSCIOUSNESS
      OF SINS.
      But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.
      For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could
      take away sins.
    
      I think we're a lot more like that Himalayan.  Yeah, we may have
      received more of the word than him.  BUT, we have received a lot
      less than "very image."  
    
      How can I say that?  Because Hebrews says if we have received 
      very image, the word would have performed a certain work of heart-
      cleansing.
    
      What work is that?  We would have no more consciousness of sin.
      The word would have finished the job.
    
      So, we're in shadowland too.  A transition from shadow to very
      image looms.
                           
    						Tony

Re: .48  (John Covert)

>>If Jesus died and went to hell to preach to spirits "in prison" for three
>>days, then how is it that he told the thief on the cross "I tell you the
>>truth, today you will be with me in paradise."?
>
>"In prison"?  I didn't say that.
>
>Wherever Jesus is, there is paradise.

But please clarify for me.  1 Peter 3:19 says "in prison", and you use this
to support what I call a common misunderstanding of that passage of scripture,
that Jesus went (when he died) to preach to the spirits "in prison".

Am I misunderstanding you in some way?

As soon as the Redemption had taken place, the just who had been unable to
enter heaven (who were unable to come to the Father except through Jesus
and through the merits of his sacrifice), were given the opportunity to
hear the Gospel, to know Jesus, and to be released from their "prison".

This is sometimes referred to as Abraham's bosom, and is not necessarily a
prison in the "Massachusetts Correctional Institute" sense with bars and
locks and jailers, but rather the imprisonment of unredeemed sin holding
those who had died without hearing the Gospel, who had not yet received
the merits of Christ's sacrifice -- were not yet washed in the blood of
the lamb and made whiter than snow -- and thus were prevented from entering
into God's direct presence.

It seems pretty odd to me that you claim to have some special understanding
about the meaning of this verse that differs from the understanding of
the apostles as recorded in the Apostles' Creed, as taught by the Church
since the earliest days, and as attested and confirmed by so many other
clear scripture references.

There is nothing you could say which would cause me to lose my faith in
the traditional interpretation of these verses and agree with your claim
that they are misunderstood.

/john

      Hi John,
    
        Faith in traditional interpretation????
    
        How about FAITH IN GOD!!!
    
        A Jew who had "faith in traditional interpretation" 2000
        years ago would (thus) have rejected the Messiah.
     
        "All these things happened as examples..."
    
    						Tony

re .53

Jesus is God.  Garth is not.

/john

      Hi John,
    
        I think you missed my point, but thats cool.
    
        I differentiate "traditional interpretation" from God,
        thats all.
    
    						Tony

And I differentiate a modern interpretation from the plain word of scripture.

I did some research last night, and found it interesting that many "reformed"
churches use the Apostles' Creed and include the words "he descended into
hell", but then have elaborate explanations of how even in the creed it
means something completely different than what the plain words say.

My faith in God does not lead me to believe that he made scripture unclear
or made modern men so much smarter than the people of Jesus's own choosing
who wrote the texts and passed on what they had been told directly by Our
Lord.

No, my faith in God makes me believe that he meant what he said.  Scripture
plainly states in numerous places that Jesus descended to the place of the
departed spirits, that he was truly dead, like any other human being would
die, and that he was resurrected, had not yet gone to the Father, and then
ascended into heaven.

Scripture doesn't just say this in one place, it says it in several.

/john

 .49


 At what point in this hypothetical did the person realize that a) he is
 a sinner, b) that the penalty of his sin is death, c)Christ paid the
 debt for his sin, d) he should go and sin no more?


 

 Jim

      Hi Jim,
    
        I think you need to add a lot of verses that presently are
        vacant from your 'tapestry' that is the scriptural support
        for the plan of redemption (as you understand it).
    
        I provided scripture which you completely sidestepped.
    
        A dialogue entirely vacant of response to scripture from
        one person is really not a dialogue, so I suppose I have
        no need dialoguing!
    
    						Take Care,
    
    						Tony

| <<< Note 47.54 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| Jesus is God.  Garth is not.

	John Covert.... we agree on something! :-)

>Lets take it a step further.  What is he accountable for?  Is he not


He is accountable for his sin.  All have sinned and come short of the 
Glory of God (Romans 3:23).  The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23)
While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8) Neither is there
salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven and earth
by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12)



By merely acknowledging that there is a God and vowing to serve Him we are
not assured of salvation.  It is quite clear in Scripture that it is our
sin that separates us from God, not a lack of knowledge of Him.



Jim

>But let me ask you this:  Was this man exempt from waiting for the final
>judgment on the last day?

>Was this man given some special grace which allowed him to go to
>heaven/paradise "today" (before the final judgment)?  Or does paradise mean
>something different -- does it mean the place of the departed spirits that
>I have been talking about, where Jesus preached to those who had not yet heard
>the Gospel?  Did that place (Gehenna) become paradise at the moment Jesus
>died because of his presence there, preaching the Gospel of salvation to
>those willing to listen?
    
    Jesus did not have to preach the gospel of salvation for it had been
    preached already since immediately after the fall.  Paul makes it clear
    that Christians absent from the body are with the Lord.  One has to
    deduce that unbelievers absent the body are not with the Lord.

    jeff

>And I differentiate a modern interpretation from the plain word of scripture.

>I did some research last night, and found it interesting that many "reformed"
>churches use the Apostles' Creed and include the words "he descended into
>hell", but then have elaborate explanations of how even in the creed it
>means something completely different than what the plain words say.
    
    Indeed we do use the Apostles' Creed.  But the Apostles Creed is
    secondary to Scripture and is only a tool - it does not represent the
    standards of our faith.  Our understanding of the plain word of
    Scripture (which is not so plain on this subject) does not require us
    to equivocate in reciting the Apostles' Creed.  You will notice that it
    also mentions the "catholic" church, quite plainly, but it doesn't mean
    the Roman Catholic Church as many might infer, not knowing better.

>My faith in God does not lead me to believe that he made scripture unclear
>or made modern men so much smarter than the people of Jesus's own choosing
>who wrote the texts and passed on what they had been told directly by Our
>Lord.
    
    Scripture is not unclear but some things are difficult to understand
    and remain a mystery.  However, we expect the Holy Spirit to continue
    to minister in leading men into a finer understanding of God's Word
    over time.  That's our challenge - not to change the meaning of
    Scripture but to fully understand it by the Holy Spirit's continuing
    ministry.

    
    jeff

    Hebrews 9:27 also makes it clear that judgment awaits the unbelievers
    upon death.
    
    It's important to remember that our standard use of the word Hell
    doesn't equal Abraham's bosom (i.e., Sheol, Tartarus, etc.).  This
    was the holding place for pre-Atonement believers only.  
    
    The Bible doesn't teach there are 2nd chances for unbelievers. 
    Anywhere!  It's simply not scriptural.

>    Hebrews 9:27 also makes it clear that judgment awaits the unbelievers
>    upon death.
    
>    It's important to remember that our standard use of the word Hell
>    doesn't equal Abraham's bosom (i.e., Sheol, Tartarus, etc.).  This
>    was the holding place for pre-Atonement believers only.  
    
    I'm wondering if in fact the reason for our present confusion around the 
    OT meaning of where folks go when they die is not more the result of
    the lack of clear revelation from God to the Israelites on the subject,
    revelation which was made available through Christ and the Apostles
    which we now see.  
    
    This confusion is cemented in the view which believes that the OT 
    believers were saved not by faith in Christ but in something else such 
    as performance of the law and therefore needed a different place to
    hang out after death until Christ could go back and tell them about
    himself.
    
    Clarity is cemented in the view which believes, based upon the biblical
    record and reasonable deduction, that the OT believers were saved just
    like NT believers, through faith in the Christ, who was to come,
    according to Genesis and the whole testimony of the prophets.  The idea
    that Christ had to literally descend to hell (remember, he did not see
    corruption) to preach salvation to those who hadn't heard it just
    doesn't make sense.
    
    jeff

	Thus far I understand what John believes and why he does including the
bible verses he uses to substantiate his beliefs. He also has added the
argument of tradition. John has provided enough information for me to determine
whether I agree with his beliefs or not, however...

	Most folks weighing in on this one have voiced their disagreement with
John, but have not clearly stated their own beliefs nor provided much, if any,
scriptural reference. Most of the scriptural references quoted were used to
refute John's beliefs without explaining how they support their own beliefs.

I'm wondering if anyone will provide an explanation as thoroughly as John has.

Ace

      re: -1
    
      I don't bother much with explaining the doctrine of conditionally
      immortality/state of the dead.
    
      We've been over that road so many times!
    
      I believe Jesus lacked consciousness between His death on the
      cross and His resurrection.  I believe death is inclusive of cessa-
      tion of consciousness.  That life implies having a conscious and
      death does not.
    
      Well, actually one meaning of life/death as clearly there are 
      others (such as Romans 7:9).
    
    						Tony

    re .65
    
    I too have enjoyed the clear way that John presented his belief.
    
    Thanks John
    
    
    Jill
    

re.66

That's okay Tony. You're exempt from further explanation since we all have
been enlightened so much by you in the past.  8*)  Besides we're low on
disk space.  8*)  8*)

ace

    re .49
    
    Tony,
    
    If he confessed that Jesus is Lord because the Holy Spirit spoke to his
    heart then I agree completely.  However, saying that a sunrise is
    beautiful and thanking the "higher power" of your choice is way different!
    
    Jill
     

    re: cessation of consciousness upon death
    
    Study Luke 16.

    re: -1
    
    Study the *whole* Bible.

    been there, done that.
    
        Christ taught that there is life after death (Luke 16:19-31), Christ
        promised continuing life the same day after death (Luke 23:39-43), and
        Paul taught an independent existence apart from the body after death
        (II Corinthians 5:5-8; Philippians 1:19-24).

        The immortality of the soul is a God-inspired truth (Ecclesiastes 12:7,
        II Corinthians 5:1,6-8).

        The resurrection is a returning of the soul back to its body (I Kings
        17:17-24, Luke 7:11-17), and will happen when Christ returns
        (Luke 24:36-43, Philippians 3:20-21, I Corinthians 15:39-54).
    
        Soul sleep is not a Biblical doctrine (Luke 16).

    The last word is yours, Mike.
    
    					Tony

	And I, of course, agree with Mike Heiser.

	The belief that the souls of the departed are not simply sleeping
	while awaiting resurrection is well expressed in the Prayer for the
	Whole State of Christ's Church in the American Book of Common Prayer,
	in which Episcopalians pray:

		And we also bless thy holy Name for all thy
		servants departed this life in thy faith and
		fear; beseeching thee to grant them continual
		growth in thy love and service, and to give us
		grace to follow their good examples...

/john

| <<< Note 47.73 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>

| The last word is yours, Mike.

	And this is key, Tony. It is his, and not His. This is sad.

    Mike's note is ladened with scripture.  Glen did you read the scripture
    posted?   Do you have a different interpretation?  
    
    Otherwise your comment is out of place and could be taken as a personal
    insult on Mike.  I don't think you meant this as an insult, did you
    Glen?
    
    Nancy
    

	Nancy, posting that anytime I post a note is silly. I hope you don't
plan on doing that. Cuz then this note will follow. 

	To answer your question, no. There was no insult. I just agree with
Tony's view on this. Imagine that.

Is there some particular reason you needed to respond with a personal attack on
Nancy, Glen?

She simply asked you a question.  There is no need for you to jump to
conclusions or be derogatory.

Paul

    .77
    
    What do you mean?  I've never posted a note like that before to you? 
    This is a serious question;  Did you read the scripture?  What makes
    Tony's interpretation any better than Mike's?
    
    I'm really curious on what you base your opinion and how you can accuse
    one noter in this conference of using their own words while elevating
    another?  You made a judgment on Mike, while supporting another Tony on
    his interpretation.  Are they both not a man's interpretation of
    scripture?
    
    I'm confused, please explain to me YOUR point of view on this Scripture
    that led to your disparaging remark against Mike.
    
    

      Glen,
    
        I'm sorry, but I agree with the other's here.  Mike was
        offering his honest view while I was offering mine.
    
        I think Mike (as I) would agree that all that he posts
        are his understanding of Him and that if "He" were to post
        who He is, there would be differences.
    
        I didn't see that Mike was equating his words to His words.
    
    						Tony

| <<< Note 47.78 by PAULKM::WEISS "To speak the Truth, you must first live it" >>>

| Is there some particular reason you needed to respond with a personal attack 
| on Nancy, Glen?

	You people have a strange definition on personal attack. 

| She simply asked you a question.  

	She made a statement. 

| There is no need for you to jump to conclusions or be derogatory.

	Nancy made the statement of a personal attack. If you are going to make
a comment, at least make sure the person you are defending hasn't already done
the same thing. 


Glen

| <<< Note 47.79 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| What makes Tony's interpretation any better than Mike's?

	I said I agreed with Tony's. Life is greater than this notesfile. Tony
and I have had several conversations in the hall, in the cafe, even outside. I
agree with Tony because I understand where he is coming from. Too many people
are quick to judge. 

| I'm really curious on what you base your opinion and how you can accuse one 
| noter in this conference of using their own words while elevating another?  

	Reread the above. Add in Tony speaks (from my view) as someone who not
only understands Scripture, but feels it. Tony does not ever use Scripture to
knock anyone down. While Tony even admits he is not always right, he accepts
that when one shows him he is in a way that is constructive. 

| that led to your disparaging remark against Mike.

	Gee.... we're getting to use some errr....interesting words here.



Glen

Well, Glen, I disagree with your view of this interaction, too.  I don't think
there's much point in pursuing why, though.

Sighing off (yes, that is an h instead of an n deliberately)

Paul

    .82
    
    Please let me know if I understand your reply correctly;  You view
    Tony's view of the Bible to be His words?

| <<< Note 47.84 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| Please let me know if I understand your reply correctly;  You view
| Tony's view of the Bible to be His words?

	As close as a human can interpret anything related to God.

    Glen I've thought about this dialogue between us a lot.  I have to
    admit that I've come to believe that the way in which you have
    presented your opinion here is partially, if not absolutely the reason
    we find it so hard to communicate. 
    
    Here is how I perceive you came to your disparaging remark against
    Mike.
    		The Bible	Man's Interpretation
    Mike says 	2+2 	              = 3
    Tony says 	2+2 		      = 5
    
    Mike and Tony's opinion about what 2+2 equals are both different and
    slightly off the mark, however you stand by Tony not based on knowing
    the answer but on personal experience with Tony.  You like and know
    Tony so you trust his answer.  But you've never done the math yourself
    to know the right answer.
    
    You didn't read the scripture and then make a comment on the scripture
    instead you chose to make a personal statement about Mike. 
    
    Please know that you changed the focus of the conversation off the
    topic onto an individual and our noting policy states that personal
    insult is not acceptable in this forum.
    
    Glen, I am requesting that you please note here concious of this
    policy. 
    
    Thank you,
    Nancy
    

| <<< Note 47.86 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


	Nancy... very nice analogy. Especially the part that they are both off
the mark a bit. We all are! :-)

| the answer but on personal experience with Tony. You like and know Tony so you
| trust his answer.  

	Partially true. I like Tony. But it is based on our conversations in
the halls, in the cafe about various religious beliefs. This was one of the
things that we have talked about.

| But you've never done the math yourself to know the right answer.

	No, I have done the math. Just not the math you think should be done.
From talking with Tony I have been able to understand him a lot better. I see
him interact with a lot of different people. Infact, just today he started
talking to a friend of mine about religion and I fully expected my friend to
say, "Religious freak" once he left as my friend could care less about
religion. Instead my friend said Tony was cool. Now that's God working through
Tony, if you ask me. Tony didn't preach. He held a conversation. Tony didn't 
judge. he held a conversation. Tony shows God in him day after day. 

| Glen, I am requesting that you please note here concious of this policy.

	Another new rule? 

      Hi Glen,
    
        Wow thanks!  Tell Bob that I'm sorry if I imposed in any way!
    
        The admonition I have for you is the same one I have for yourself.
        Please pray that God gives you a hunger for His word.
    
    						Take Care,
    
    						Tony

    Glen,
    
    No it is not a new rule.  The rule is that personal insults are not
    allowed.  Whether you think you did or not, you made a disparaging
    personal comment about Mike based on personality acceptance versus
    reading the scriptures these two men were discussing and joining in on
    that discussion. 
    
    BTW, I purposely chose that analogy because as we are humans we only
    see through the glass darkly. :-)
    
    Best Regards,
    Nancy

    What a wonderful testament about Tony!  That is great to hear. Keep on
    shining Tony!
    
    Love ya,
    Nancy

Re: .46  (John Covert)

>Eph 4:9-10, Acts 3:15, Rom 8:11, 1 Cor 15:20, Heb 13:20, 1 Pet 3:18-19,
>Phil 2:10, Acts 2:24, Rev 1:18, Eph 4:9, Pss 6:6, 88:11-13, 89:49, 1 Sam
>28:19, Ezek 32:17-32, Lk 16:22-26, Mt 27:52-53, 1 Pet 4:6, Jn 5:25, Mt 12:40,
>Rom 10:7, Eph 4:9, Heb 2:14-15, Acts 3:15, Rev 1:18, Phil 2:10.

I started to compose a reply to address all the above scriptures, but have
since lost interest in continuing the Jesus-in-hell-preached-to-dead debate.

Regarding 1 Peter 3:18,  

  1 Pet 3:18  For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the 
  unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made 
  alive by the Spirit, [19] through whom also he went and preached to the 
  spirits in prison  [20] who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently 
  in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. 

This of course is the passage that I spoke of in reply .44.  I pointed out
that this is commonly misunderstood to mean that Jesus died, went to hell,
and preached to the dead people who died in the flood.

Again, the point is that in the days of Noah Jesus preached "in/by the 
Spirit" to those people.  Today they are "in prison".

Context is so important to getting the whole story.  If you read the 
surrounding context of the passage, you see that the Apostle Peter is
discussing our doing good in a world full of evil-doers.  He cites the
"disobedient" of Noah's day as part of this same context.  Those people
were preached to, died in their sins, and as a result are now in prison.

If you still doubt that I am correct in my assessment of 1 Peter 2:19,
then read carefully the following passage near the beginning of Peter's
epistle:

  1 Pet 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the 
  grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest 
  care, [11] trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the 
  Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings 
  of Christ and the glories that would follow. [12] It was revealed to 
  them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of 
  the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the 
  gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to 
  look into these things.

Note how he even more explicitly refers to the "Spirit of Christ" speaking
through the prophets of the Old Testament.

Regarding the other references, I will simply list them in the next reply
without comment.  The readership can read all these and decide for themselves
whether Jesus in hell preaching to the dead is a biblical doctrine.

Re: .46  (John Covert)

>Eph 4:9-10, Acts 3:15, Rom 8:11, 1 Cor 15:20, Heb 13:20, 1 Pet 3:18-19,
>Phil 2:10, Acts 2:24, Rev 1:18, Eph 4:9, Pss 6:6, 88:11-13, 89:49, 1 Sam
>28:19, Ezek 32:17-32, Lk 16:22-26, Mt 27:52-53, 1 Pet 4:6, Jn 5:25, Mt 12:40,
>Rom 10:7, Eph 4:9, Heb 2:14-15, Acts 3:15, Rev 1:18, Phil 2:10.

1 Pet 3:18  For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the 
unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made 
alive by the Spirit, [19] through whom also he went and preached to the 
spirits in prison  [20] who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently 
in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. 

Eph 4:9 (What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the 
lower, earthly regions? [10] He who descended is the very one who 
ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 

PHP 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,

PHP 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

PHP 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

1 Pet 4:6  For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those 
who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard 
to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

Psalm 6:6 I am worn out from groaning;
all night long I flood my bed with weeping
and drench my couch with tears.

Psalm 88:13 But I cry to you for help, O LORD;
in the morning my prayer comes before you.

Psalm 89:49 O Lord, where is your former great love,
which in your faithfulness you swore to David?

Acts 3:15  You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead.
We are witnesses of this.

Romans 8:11  And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is 
living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to 
your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

1 Cor 15:20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits
of those who have fallen asleep.

Heb 13:20 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal 
covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd 
of the sheep,

Acts 2:24  But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of 
death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

Rev 1:18  I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever 
and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

1 Sam 28:19 The LORD will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines,
 and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The LORD will also hand 
over the army of Israel to the Philistines."

EZE 32:17 In the twelfth year, on the fifteenth day of the month, the word 
of the LORD came to me: [18] "Son of man, wail for the hordes of Egypt and 
consign to the earth below both her and the daughters of mighty nations, 
with those who go down to the pit. [19] Say to them, `Are you more favored 
than others? Go down and be laid among the uncircumcised.' [20] They will 
fall among those killed by the sword. The sword is drawn; let her be dragged
off with all her hordes. [21] From within the grave* the mighty leaders 
will say of Egypt and her allies, `They have come down and they lie with 
the uncircumcised, with those killed by the sword.'

EZE 32:22 "Assyria is there with her whole army; she is surrounded by the 
graves of all her slain, all who have fallen by the sword. [23] Their 
graves are in the depths of the pit and her army lies around her grave. 
All who had spread terror in the land of the living are slain, fallen by 
the sword.

EZE 32:24 "Elam is there, with all her hordes around her grave. All of 
them are slain, fallen by the sword. All who had spread terror in the 
land of the living went down uncircumcised to the earth below. They bear 
their shame with those who go down to the pit. [25] A bed is made for her 
among the slain, with all her hordes around her grave. All of them are 
uncircumcised, killed by the sword. Because their terror had spread in the 
land of the living, they bear their shame with those who go down to the 
pit; they are laid among the slain.

EZE 32:26 "Meshech and Tubal are there, with all their hordes around their 
graves. All of them are uncircumcised, killed by the sword because they 
spread their terror in the land of the living. [27] Do they not lie with 
the other uncircumcised warriors who have fallen, who went down to the 
grave with their weapons of war, whose swords were placed under their 
heads? The punishment for their sins rested on their bones, though the 
terror of these warriors had stalked through the land of the living.

EZE 32:28 "You too, O Pharaoh, will be broken and will lie among the 
uncircumcised, with those killed by the sword.

EZE 32:29 "Edom is there, her kings and all her princes; despite their 
power, they are laid with those killed by the sword. They lie with the 
uncircumcised, with those who go down to the pit.

EZE 32:30 "All the princes of the north and all the Sidonians are there; 
they went down with the slain in disgrace despite the terror caused by 
their power. They lie uncircumcised with those killed by the sword and 
bear their shame with those who go down to the pit.

EZE 32:31 "Pharaoh--he and all his army--will see them and he will be 
consoled for all his hordes that were killed by the sword, declares the 
Sovereign LORD. [32] Although I had him spread terror in the land of the 
living, Pharaoh and all his hordes will be laid among the uncircumcised, 
with those killed by the sword, declares the Sovereign LORD."

Luke 16:22 "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him 
to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. [23] In hell,
where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with 
Lazarus by his side. [24] So he called to him, `Father Abraham, have pity 
on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my 
tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

Luke 16:25 "But Abraham replied, `Son, remember that in your lifetime you 
received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he 
is comforted here and you are in agony. [26] And besides all this, between 
us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from 
here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

Matt 27:52  The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had 
died were raised to life. [53] They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' 
resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

John 5:25  I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when 
the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

Matt 12:40  For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a 
huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the 
heart of the earth. 

Rom 10:7  "or `Who will descend into the deep?'* " (that is, to bring 
Christ up from the dead).

Heb 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their 
humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of 
death--that is, the devil--

| <<< Note 47.88 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>


| Tell Bob that I'm sorry if I imposed in any way!

	I'll tell Bob that, but I should probably tell Dan, the guy you were
talking to. heh heh

| Please pray that God gives you a hunger for His word.

	No, I will not do this. I will pray that God shows me everything He
wants to show me using whatever tools He wants. 

    re .93
    
    Glenn,
    
    I was just wondering what you see is the difference between these two
    prayers?  They seem rather similar to me.  If you care to share this I
    would be very interested to learn more about you.
    
       | Please pray that God gives you a hunger for His word.
    
       No, I will not do this. I will pray that God shows me
       everything He wants to show me using whatever tools He wants. 
    
    
    
    Jill
    

I think you're asking Glen to explain again why he doesn't believe in the
premise of this conference - the Word of God.

You don't have to answer, Glen.

Paul

| <<< Note 47.95 by PAULKM::WEISS "To speak the Truth, you must first live it" >>>

| You don't have to answer, Glen.

	Ohhhh.....but yes, I do, and will!  in mail.... :-)

 "For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-
  edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and
  of the joints and marrow and is the discerner of the thoughts and intents
  of the heart"

              Hebrews 4:12


 May we all pray for a hunger for the Word of God.



 Jim

    
    If you are following this topic somehow, in hopes of seeing discussions
    of other controversial beliefs posted here, I recommend note 53 "State
    of the Dead (Again!)".
    
    jeff

    Hi,
    
    Sorry if I am interupting, but it came to my mind that we have
    to humble ourselves.
    
    You ask God for a hunger for His Word.
    
    I am thinking of Josef, he was put in a hole in the earth,
    sold as a slave, inocent convicted.
    But then God made Him Leader of Egypt.
    
    God is working on His children, that they humble themselves for
    the Lord and then when they are willing to give anything to God
    even their lives, then God has made Himself "A people prepared!"
    
    Then people of the world will see the acts of this people and
    will give all the glory to God, because they will see God Love
    in the Son's of God.
    
    Because all creation is waiting like a woman who will give birt,
    to the Son's of God to became visible.
    And I believe that "Son's of God" have nothing to do with male
    or female, but only with your relation with God.
    If you humble yourself to God and depend on Him for all things
    than male and female are Son's of God.
    
    						That God Love may prepare
    						you and use you.
    
    						L.B.W.