Evidence for God from Science

Why was the location of Jesus and his ministry mainly in lower Europe (correct me if I'm wrong). if at that time the way to heaven was through Jesus what about the natives in the united states and other people around the world un-aware of Jesus' existence. Where they just doomed for hell?

I think they will get a final chance, those that never heard the gospel. That is just my logical conclusion that God can't be unfair, therefore someone can't be doomed because they never had the chance to repent.

This covers it really

Romans 2:12-16

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

People who have not heard the Gospel - God knows their heart and knows how they would react if they were to hear the Gospel so that the blood of Christ will still cover them. This also applies to all who were before Christ as well. So location is irrelevant. It is a strawman that Atheists use all the time.

People who have not heard the Gospel - God knows their heart and knows how they would react if they were to hear the Gospel so that the blood of Christ will still cover them.

This is not what Scripture teaches! Scripture indicates that, certainly post-Jesus ministry, all must hear, accept and sincerely implement the simple, basic message of the Gospel. "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."

Now, I do believe that God obviously knows precisely who the Gospel will benefit and who no amount of detailed information about it and Him will be profitable for them. And remember, it is God, Whom in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, clearly places people in geographic location and time, as per his purposes. And according to Romans, one most certainly can reject God without knowing about Jesus and His Resurrection. But if God promotes people to Heaven on the mere basis of what they WOULD do - but have NOT actually done - then why the Great Commission? Why have so many missionaries risked and given their very lives to spread the Gospel to hostile heathens? And let's not forget, Romans tells us that God has placed basic information about Himself on ALL hearts and His law on their hearts. Scripture tells us that communicating with God is as close as one's own breath. And so I am convinced that God gives adequate information for salvation to all whom so desire it.

Look at the first Gentile convert, the Roman Cornelius. He had heard of the God of the Jews, had sought to honor what he already knew of God, through prayer, kindness and giving. But he was not actually saved until God had him send for Peter. And only subsequent to hearing the Gospel preached by Peter was he actually saved. This is an example of a person who wanted to know more than what God had ALREADY revealed to him. And so Cornelius sought to know more through prayer, diligently seeking God. And so God honored that and connected him with Peter and the Gospel.

I don't know phillip, but that to me is an unfair image of God. Surely there are people who have never heard of Christ and died, I think on that last day they shall be given a choice. They should atleast.

Not to be nitpicky neo, but I don't think we can or should say that such people "should" be given a choice. The word "should" implies obligation, and in this case, God's obligation to creatures. But God has no obligations, for to be obligated is to restrict one's freedom, and to have one's freedom restricted is to be placed under the claims of another. But God is absolutely free precisely because He is under absolutely nothing.

What we can say is that it is more fitting to God's nature that He give such people a second chance. That, I think, is a much fairer statement for two reasons. First, it is more defensible at the level of theology proper (insofar as it preserves God's aseity and the correct relationship between God and man); and second, it removes some of the moral weight of your phrasing. To clarify that second point, a concern I have with saying that God "should" do this or that He "should" do that is that we are implicitly passing judgment on Him--if He does not do what He "ought" to do, then He stands condemned, and here we are right back to Euthyphro. If God stands condemned -- for that matter if it is even possible for God to stand condemned in principle -- then "good" is a standard external to God, and that means that God's own goodness is contingent on that standard, which denies His aseity.

Jac3510 wrote:Not to be nitpicky neo, but I don't think we can or should say that such people "should" be given a choice. The word "should" implies obligation, and in this case, God's obligation to creatures. But God has no obligations, for to be obligated is to restrict one's freedom, and to have one's freedom restricted is to be placed under the claims of another. But God is absolutely free precisely because He is under absolutely nothing.

What we can say is that it is more fitting to God's nature that He give such people a second chance. That, I think, is a much fairer statement for two reasons. First, it is more defensible at the level of theology proper (insofar as it preserves God's aseity and the correct relationship between God and man); and second, it removes some of the moral weight of your phrasing. To clarify that second point, a concern I have with saying that God "should" do this or that He "should" do that is that we are implicitly passing judgment on Him--if He does not do what He "ought" to do, then He stands condemned, and here we are right back to Euthyphro. If God stands condemned -- for that matter if it is even possible for God to stand condemned in principle -- then "good" is a standard external to God, and that means that God's own goodness is contingent on that standard, which denies His aseity.

You are right, I agree, we should not use "God should" as a phrasing, it really is not a good defensible phrase...however just to have your thoughts on this, personally I think God is "bound" by his own self so to say, in a way, he is obligated to his own justice after all he couldn't be what he is not? He is not unjust therefore "God should" isn't an obligation but a logical consequence? your thoughts? perhaps "God shall" is a more appropriate phrase?

God can bind Himself, but only by what He has explicitly promised. So if God says, "I will do this for you," He is not obligated literally to me but rather to Himself to do what He has said He would do. I would not, however, go so far as to say that God is bound by that same justice to treat us in a particular manner with reference eternal punishment/reward. Implicit in such an assumption is that God has said, "I will give you an explicit opportunity to accept the Gospel." But I don't see where God has said that. Now, perhaps He has and revelation has simply not told us. And perhaps you can argue it is more fitting for God to have said that. Or, perhaps you could argue that while God has not said that, it is fitting for Him all the same to do it.

Further, I still think you are smuggling God's obligation to us in a backdoor of sorts. When you say, "He is not unjust therefore . . ." the implication is that if God condemns a person who has never heard the Gospel then He is acting in an unjust manner, and that because God is obligated to offer the Gospel before condemning. But now we are right back to God's obligation to us. The only way out of that, as far as I can see, is by what I said just above: God is NOT obligated to offer us the Gospel except and unless He is obligated to Himself to offer it, which would necessitate a statement on His behalf that He would do so. In short, if God is obligated to anything, it is not by the necessity of His nature that He do this or that (for then, He would not be free and thus not be God), but only that He has freely chosen to obligate Himself. But that free choice has to be explicitly stated. That is what I mean when I say, "God has said, 'I will give you an explicit opportunity to accept the Gospel.'"

The real problem for us, again, is that revelation has not told us that God has made any such promise. If we believe it and argue for it, we have to do so on grounds of fittingness, not necessity--and fittingness in light of statements He has said about Himself, e.g., that He wants all to come to know Him. But we have to keep in mind that God would be just if He condemned all of us, for all are sinners (excluding for the sake of thought experiment the promise of salvation to all who believe). Moreover, we have to remember that the promise of salvation is gracious, which means by definition it is unearned or unmerited. That means that no one can justly lay claim to deserve to be offered it.It is like the story Jesus told of the workers, all who were paid the same amount even though they worked different hours. The point there is that it does not violate God's justice to be gracious to one and not another. If it did, the implication would be that God, in being gracious to one, would thereby be obligated to be gracious to all. But now we are no longer talking about grace (since the "grace" would be merited simply due to the shear fact of being human).

Thoughts on my thoughts?

Those who hear the Gospel and believe will not be judged but have eternal life ( after the resurrection) and those that have not heard and have not known Christ will be judged on their actions.

Implicit in such an assumption is that God has said, "I will give you an explicit opportunity to accept the Gospel." But I don't see where God has said that. Now, perhaps He has and revelation has simply not told us.

And the bolded portion and the italicized "PERHAPS" is precisely where we are forced to leave it. We can't go beyond what Scripture tells us. But we CAN speculate based upon the following:

1) God's loving and fair character and His own words that state He "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," and that declare, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live" - these show a God Whom has a heart and desire that men come to Him and be saved. His heart for the salvation of men is clear per the enormous suffering Jesus endured during His ordeal of the Cross.

2) We see that Christ leads by example - does He expect us to love others as we love ourselves, but yet He Himself shows only hate and condemnation without giving people a chance? Does He expect us to be more moral (per His definitions of that ) than He is? Absurd! His parables: Deny the lawyer trying to choose for himself who his neighbor is, who he is to treat with kindness and love; Show great joy in the return of the Prodigal Son. The Samaritan's treatment of the robbed and beaten man is held up as how God want us to treat others - to show compassion to ANYONE in need. How could God be any different? Are we to show more compassion than God? A man without understanding of God is a man in the worst kind of need - would a loving God withhold knowledge that would save a man (the Gospel) if He foreknew that man's heart would be receptive to His message? I don't believe that. And this tells me that something else is going on - that God foreknows many will only reject God FURTHER, as they have already rejected. OR perhaps God has long reached to many miraculously, in ways that we have not seen. In fact, that would not surprise me a bit.

3) Does the Father send Jesus to come to save "the world" and then deliberately bypass or place others in time and place so that they can never know what He requires of them to respond to (the Gospel message) - or is the Gospel withheld via their physical and time placements because He foreknows all for whom knowledge of the Gospel will only be a more specific revealing of God that they will only reject as well?

4) If rejection of the Gospel is a rebellion and unsaved people are undoubtedly rebels, does God deliberately guarantee life-long rebels by giving them a requirement (having faith in Him - and post Jesus - belief in the Son and His Resurrection) and then deliberately withhold the information (the Gospel) that would give people an opportunity to positively respond as God requires, UNLESS there is something more going on?

5) People can, do and long historically have rejected God without knowing about Jesus. You cannot divvy God up - if you reject the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit, you have rejected ALL of Who God is. So one who merely denies God with only very basic knowledge of Him has nonetheless also rejected Jesus - it's just that he doesn't know that is what he has ALSO done. And just look at all those whom actually saw Jesus in the flesh, doing incredible wonders, yet STILL would not believe. So we often falsely believe that people have an information deficit. But that is not what Scripture reveals.

6) When Scripture says: "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares" - we see that God sees things we do not about people's hearts and minds, and we also see that He has put His law on their hearts. This tells me God has not withheld knowledge of Himself that - IF embraced and desirous of MORE knowledge - God would gladly give it (the Gospel, etc). And, interestingly, before we see this section as implying that God hasn't treated everyone with equal consideration, He leads off with this declaration: "For God does not show favoritism." Note that God didn't limit those He desired to His original chosen people - as, all the time, He had a plain to save Gentiles as well." Note that heaven will include those from every tribe.

7) In heaven, John saw, "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands." And so how could that be - it may well be more than because of children who died (I believe there is an implied "age of accountability"). Yes, God very likely has communicated the Gospel to many in ways we cannot see and know of.

Given God's Holy, just and loving character, I just can't imagine that His plan of salvation isn't designed for all - across the entire world and all of its ages - to save the maximum possible number of people who would respond to the Him with a saving faith. The idea that God has played favorites and kept knowledge (key to their salvation) from them so as to prevent their salvation, or has designed them incapable of knowing or desiring Him - I find those things absurd.

9) I believe it is the devil whom wants us to believe that God is stingy with knowledge about himself, or that He desires anyone to reject Him, or that He has PREVENTED any one from coming to Him.

Again, we can only go on what Scripture says, but we can speculate. And Scripture shows no one being saved (post Jesus) that did not first hear the Gospel!

Right, philip, which is why I said you could make an argument from fittingness. All those kinds of things would be perfectly relevant to such an argument

Philip wrote:

People who have not heard the Gospel - God knows their heart and knows how they would react if they were to hear the Gospel so that the blood of Christ will still cover them.

This is not what Scripture teaches! Scripture indicates that, certainly post-Jesus ministry, all must hear, accept and sincerely implement the simple, basic message of the Gospel. "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."

Now, I do believe that God obviously knows precisely who the Gospel will benefit and who no amount of detailed information about it and Him will be profitable for them. And remember, it is God, Whom in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, clearly places people in geographic location and time, as per his purposes. And according to Romans, one most certainly can reject God without knowing about Jesus and His Resurrection. But if God promotes people to Heaven on the mere basis of what they WOULD do - but have NOT actually done - then why the Great Commission? Why have so many missionaries risked and given their very lives to spread the Gospel to hostile heathens? And let's not forget, Romans tells us that God has placed basic information about Himself on ALL hearts and His law on their hearts. Scripture tells us that communicating with God is as close as one's own breath. And so I am convinced that God gives adequate information for salvation to all whom so desire it.

Look at the first Gentile convert, the Roman Cornelius. He had heard of the God of the Jews, had sought to honor what he already knew of God, through prayer, kindness and giving. But he was not actually saved until God had him send for Peter. And only subsequent to hearing the Gospel preached by Peter was he actually saved. This is an example of a person who wanted to know more than what God had ALREADY revealed to him. And so Cornelius sought to know more through prayer, diligently seeking God. And so God honored that and connected him with Peter and the Gospel.

I would disagree with this as this does not seem to be drawn out in reality. What about some tribes deep in the amazon that have never heard of the Gospel - how are they saved?

philip wrote:Given God's Holy, just and loving character, I just can't imagine that His plan of salvation isn't designed for all - across the entire world and all of its ages - to save the maximum possible number of people who would respond to the Him with a saving faith

Does maximum = all? If not, why not?

1over137 wrote:

philip wrote:Given God's Holy, just and loving character, I just can't imagine that His plan of salvation isn't designed for all - across the entire world and all of its ages - to save the maximum possible number of people who would respond to the Him with a saving faith

Does maximum = all? If not, why not?

Per Gen 1:26 - God gave us a charge of dominion and no gift, calling, or promise will he take back. Therefore, with this calling comes the ability to choose and exercise intelligence freely in order for us all to live according to the charge. This creates personal responsibility, and choice, so the call of salvation goes out to all but not all will choose God's way back to reconciliation with God. Those that will not, he already foreknows never will, yet, still offers the same choice to them nevertheless. Such he assigns in groups, nations, geographic locations in various eras of time as he knows best where they can live according to the dominion they created.

This is found in Acts 17:21-34. The most foreknown debased folks he can turn into a Pharaoh or Judas to demonstrate his power over evil with no violation to a person's own will charged with exercising dominion. Some who lived so long ago who would never accept God's way back to himself, he allowed to live and do deplorable things. Why, he foreknew that some of their future progeny would return to him, freely after hearing his wooing call, and all of us here writing here now, Hana, are that progeny.
-
-
-

Thank you b.w.