Evidence for God from Science

Theres heaps of people who know about jesus, but they believe things other say that the bibles not worth reading and that Jesus was a phsyco, what if they get brainwashed by that and dont bother finding the truths of God and Jesus and believing? Will they go to hell? This is what i mean, if everybody in the world knew everything about God, then chose whethor to believe or not they should be judged, im not tellnig God what to do, but why doesnt he somehow let everybody know all there is to know, so they dont get mixed in false religions? Couldnt he of done it a better way then the bible?

I have a couple of issues with your question . . . the biggest of these is the idea that people need to read or even understand the Bible to be saved. The Bible isn't written to the non-Christian world. It's for Christians.

If I may ask, what do you consider to be the necessary elements of a person's salvation?

What we know for sure is that God has decided to use the human proclamation of His Gospel as the means by which His message is to be shared. Thus, we have the Great Commission. It seems to me, then, your question is actually rooted in the idea that God could have found a better way than people to share His Word. Why not, we may ask, would God just personally reveal Himself to everyone?

My answer to that, in short form, is a big fat, "I don't know," and I'm OK with that. We're on a need-to-know basis, and we needed to know that others won't know unless we tell them. We don't need to know why God chose that method. I could hazard some guesses, but I prefer to stick to what Scripture plainly tells us . . .

God bless

Thanks.

What i was saying as,will God send people to hell who dont learn that Jesus is the only way to be saved?

I'm not sure of what Jac's thoughts are, but I believe all will be given the ability to respond to God's gift of forgiveness—to reject or to accept it. Some reject God by denying what Paul says has been clearly revealed to them through His creation (Romans 1:20). Individual people are ultimately responsible for their own choices, and responsible for their heart either heardening or softening in response to God.

As for small children, or those who suffer from mental physchological problems, I am open to the idea the God takes them to himself anyway, or that at the very least they are presented with an option after their life.

Kurieuo

K,

Actually, I'd like ot get your thoughts on something . . . I really don't have many ideas on the matter. I do believe, like you, that those who clearly reject God's revelation in nature have condemned themselves (at least, it seems to me that's what you believe?), and it seems to me that people who are physically incapable of understanding the Gospel message (i.e., young children, severely mentally disabled, etc.) are saved . . . the only really biblical support I have for that position, though, is David's child with Bathsheba, who clearly went to heaven.

What about those who have genuinely sought after God and yet the Gospel was never shared with them? I can't give an answer other than "God will deal with them justly." I have heard an interesting argument, though it is incredibly speculative and I wouldn't bet anything on it, that possibly in the Millennial Kingdom these people--including children--would be given their chance. The support for this seems to be in the idea that the MK will be populated originally by glorified people. First, those who return with Christ will obviously be glorified. Second, those who survive the Tribulation and pass the Sheep and Goats judgment will apparently enter MK with glorified bodies. If, though, in our glorified state, we don't have children, then who is there to populate the earth during that time? I can think of several solutions, but the resurrection of those unaccountable to the gospel has been one such proposal . . .

So, I don't think I'm in disagreement with you. I just really don't like to speculate on that kind of thing. Do you think the idea mentioned above is too far off base?

Jac wrote:and it seems to me that people who are physically incapable of understanding the Gospel message (i.e., young children, severely mentally disabled, etc.) are saved . . . the only really biblical support I have for that position, though, is David's child with Bathsheba, who clearly went to heaven.

I once believed all who did not accept Christ were lost including infants and what-have-you. For such a position is consistent with theology which says we are all sinful and unrighteous and justly deserve death; and it is only by accepting God's grace (unmerited favour) that we can be saved. If this theology is true, then all who do not accept God's grace will get what they naturally deserve (everlasting death from God). It isn't a nice pill to swallow, but it is one I swallowed since it appeared to be a forced conclusion to my beliefs at the time.

Then I believe Geisler opened my eyes to passages such as the one you mentioned of David's son (2 Samuel 12:23) whom he would see again when he died. And since David went to heaven (Psalm 16:10-11; Hebrews 11:32; 39-40), we can assume his child also is there. However, 2 Peter 3:9 was the turning point... for sure God may be justified in letting anyone perish since everyone deserves such a consequence. Yet, you throw into the equation that God cares for each of us and wants all of us to turn to Him, then God is more than a just judge—He is also loving with our interests at heart. So it then seemed right to believe that Christ could and would vouch for anyone who had no opportunity to accept Him such as infants or the like. At the very least, it seems entirely sensible they would be given the opportunity to accept or reject in their life hereafter.

Jac wrote:What about those who have genuinely sought after God and yet the Gospel was never shared with them? I can't give an answer other than "God will deal with them justly."

That is the only certain answer one can give, only I would add whenever one makes mention of God's "justice" it should not be separated from God's "lovingness" and vice-versa. So "God will deal with them according to His justice and lovingness." Which wins the day—God's lovingness, or God's justice? I think which we accept largely comes down to our theology. For example, I embrace that God has freely forgiven all, and salvation is only a matter of our not rejecting such forgiveness. Therefore God's lovingness naturally wins out over His justice since all are technically justified within my theology. On the other hand, if one believes a person must first come to repentance before God will forgive them their sins, then the natural conclusion of a person who does not come to repentence accordingly is that they remain in their sin and so stand condemned. Therefore God's justice would appear to win out over His lovingness within this latter theology. Although many who embrace the latter theology (including myself when I did) still appear to allow Christ's sacrifice to be applied nonetheless in cases such as infants (perhaps inconsistently?).

As for your question, in virtue of God's omniscience He would know those who genuinely sought after Him, and so it seems those who did seek Him would not reject Christ's gift. They would therefore receive the benefits as someone who had the opportunity to accept, and did accept, Christ's gift in this life. I am strongly agreeable to the idea that many who did not have a chance in this life, that they will be able to make their decision in their next life. The end result is the same, those who do want to be with God under His headship will get to be with Him, and those who don't want to be with God in this manner will be given their own way apart from God. Many automatically assume people would want to be with God, but I find it ironic that many Atheists I've debated usually at some time or another say if God is like that (e.g., sovereign, or an egoist) then I don't want anything to do with Him. God isn't going to force Himself onto such people.

Jac wrote:I have heard an interesting argument, though it is incredibly speculative and I wouldn't bet anything on it, that possibly in the Millennial Kingdom these people--including children--would be given their chance.

I don't agree with a millenial kingdom, but I am supportive of the idea that all will be eventually given their chance. As for a conflict or some sort of resolution being required with the problem you present, this does not apply to me since I reject the idea that a kingdom will be setup for 1000 years on Earth during which Christ will reign.

Kurieuo

What do you mean by their second life?

I'd also like to bring up, if God brings infants to heaven, should he mayaswell just let everyone go to heaven? Or does God know if you would of believed in him if you heard all the evdence and then decide? Even if a person isn't told, do you think God could send them to hell if he knew they wouldnt believe even if they were atheists?

Jay_7 wrote:What do you mean by their second life?

Where? Afterlife?

Jay wrote:I'd also like to bring up, if God brings infants to heaven, should he mayaswell just let everyone go to heaven?

How is it the same?

Jay wrote:Or does God know if you would of believed in him if you heard all the evdence and then decide? Even if a person isn't told, do you think God could send them to hell if he knew they wouldnt believe even if they were atheists?

Some Christians believe God knows who would have accepted Him and makes a judgement based on such knowledge. I don't agree with this, for I don't think we can be really judged for acts we haven't committed. If we could, God may as well bring about judgement day now.

Kurieuo

Where? Afterlife?

Sorry, i thought you meant a second chance kinda thing.

How is it the same?

What i meant was, if God can bring infants into heaven without accepting him, isnt it a bit unfair? Maybe there will be some other test or an option for them?

Some Christians believe God knows who would have accepted Him and makes a judgement based on such knowledge. I don't agree with this, for I don't think we can be really judged for acts we haven't committed. If we could, God may as well bring about judgement day now

I don't believe that either now, i don't really have an opinion on it..

Jay_7 wrote:What i meant was, if God can bring infants into heaven without accepting him, isnt it a bit unfair? Maybe there will be some other test or an option for them?

I don't see what is unfair if God lets a person who rejects His offer have their own way? However, it may be unfair if an infant person who died did not want to be with God, and God forced them to be with Himself. This is one reason why I'm inclined to believe they may still have the option to reject Christ's offer.

Further, if we are saved by God's grace and nothing we do, then it is unfair that any of us are saved for we're not getting what we justly deserve. But God's love means He doesn't want to give us what we justly deserve, and so He made another way through Christ.

Kurieuo

Also Jesus says to "become like little children". If you think about it, Children dont really have sin in their mind until a certain point, which is different for different people. I think that before this point, if they die, no matter what theyll go to heaven. Also seems that mentally impared people act like children, so the same rule may apply to certain of that group as well.

Oh and when i say "automatically go to heaven, you can say "automatically given the choice to" if you want, I wouldnt doubt this because it is fair if there is to be free will. Though doubt most would choose hell over the presence of Love itself lol. God bless.


-Brigham

Brigham wrote:Oh and when i say "automatically go to heaven, you can say "automatically given the choice to" if you want, I wouldnt doubt this because it is fair if there is to be free will. Though doubt most would choose hell over the presence of Love itself lol. God bless.

Well if Hell is truly as pictured by artists with flames and fire, demons with pitchforks, and what-have-you, then no doubt noone would want to go to hell. Yet, I certainly don't take such pictures as literally true—that hell is literally a place one can go to of everlasting fire, outer darkness and so forth. Rather I see that such terminology is used to convey what it will be like apart from God who is the source of all love, structure, and so forth.

Now one might ask why would anyone prefer hell? I'd respond that I can't imagine Satan wanting to be directly in God's presense for eternity as he would agonise in God's presense and simmer with bitterness and hatred. I'm sure there are others who also wouldn't want to submit to God and who would agonise in His direct presense. Thus, the only alternative a loving God could give such persons is life apart from Himself (or annihilation although this seems like a less loving alternative). And life apart from God I believe would be all hell is represented to be in Scripture.

What other options do you have besides with God, or without God? Those who don't know God and who have ignored Him in this life will likely be scared of Him when in His presence and want to hide away. And those who detest God, His sovereignty, and what He represents, will want to run from His presense. This just makes total sense to me. Thus, I see God hands over such people to their desires, which is also a punishment for their rebellion against Him.

Kurieuo

I agree Kurieuo. Though i dont know if hell is leterally flames, or as you explained, but it really doesnt matter to me. Its bad, thats all I need to know lol.