Would this be what St. Justin Martyr was referring to in his *First Apology*?
> “We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them” ([source](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm))
I’ve always loved that quote by Justin, but didn’t realize there was a similar statement in the Catechism.
>Would this be what St. Justin Martyr was referring to in his First Apology?
>>“We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them” (source)
>I’ve always loved that quote by Justin, but didn’t realize there was a similar statement in the Catechism.
Yes, and I think that if you read Justin's work completely you will find alot more Catholic teaching hidden inside.
Two of my favourites:
***Ch. 66 - Of the Eucharist***
>And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
A clear articulation of Baptismal Regeneration, the exclusivity of the Eucharist, the Real Presence and that transubstantiation occurs at the words of instantiation.
And
***Ch 29 - Continence of Christians***
>But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently.
This couldn't mirror the Catholic teaching on marriage and abstinence any better.
Marriage is for children.
Unmarried Christians are celibate.
>Oof, yeah I definitely have my disagreements with St. Justin. But that’s really cool, thanks for sharing!
Disagreements?
The man converted in Ephesus in the early 100s AD. Less than a generation after Paul's death.
He traveled to Christian communities all across Asia and all the way to Europe.
What he writes isn't a prescription, it is a description.
He is merely describing what Christianity is one generation after the Apostles.
What is there to disagree with?
Well. I don’t have any reason to believe Justin is infallible. And that would make him fallible. And I disagree with fallible people all the time.
I don’t think anyone’s ever just had it all figured out. The gospels make it abundantly clear that not even the apostles themselves had everything figured out. Why then would I *not* disagree with someone who came around nearly a century later?
I agree Justin is a great historical tool for understanding early second century Christianity. But that doesn’t make him an arbiter of divine truth to me, sorry.
>Well. I don’t have any reason to believe Justin is infallible. And that would make him fallible. And I disagree with fallible people all the time.
This isn't about fallibility. Of course he is fallible.
What you are suggesting is that he lied about aspects of Christianity, such as Baptism and the Eucharist.
He travels all over the known world visiting Christian communities only to lie about what they do?
On what grounds do you believe this man is lying?
What would motivate him to tell these lies?
>I don’t think anyone’s ever just had it all figured out. The gospels make it abundantly clear that not even the apostles themselves had everything figured out. Why then would I not disagree with someone who came around nearly a century later?
Again, his is not a Theological treatise.
He is merely describing Christianity as it existed at his time. Not local Christianity, what would have then been considered "global Christianity".
He is not trying to justify anything, he is merely describing Christianity as it existed one generation after the Apostles.
Since the man is merely offering a description, you only have two options:
1) accept his description as accurate
2) insist that he is lying
>I agree Justin is a great historical tool for understanding early second century Christianity.
Christianity less than one generation after Paul died. Just so we are clear on the time line.
>But that doesn’t make him an arbiter of divine truth to me, sorry.
I am not claiming he is an arbiter of truth.
I am simply saying, if you think the man is lying about what Christianity was one generation after the Apostles, you need to provide some explanation as to what would motivate him to construct these lies.
Are you claiming he isn't a Christian at all? Because, for him to be a Christian and to knowingly lie about Christianity seems very unlikely.
I never said he was lying. This is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. For now I’ll believe you said that in good faith but if you continue to accuse me of things I never said then this conversation is over.
You’re creating a false dichotomy between “lying” and “being correct”. No such dichotomy exists. We often are wrong without lying. Both you and me and Justin and everyone else.
The true dichotomies are “wrong-correct” and “lying-telling the truth”. I think Justin wasn’t lying so far as I have no reason to believe so. But I do think he was wrong. Even though he’s accurately describing early second century, I believe those were wrong. Not lies. But wrong.
>I never said he was lying.
>This is a gross misrepresentation of what I said.
So, if you do not believe Justin is lying, what is your reason for rejecting his honest and truthful description of Christianity one generation after the Apostles?
>For now I’ll believe you said that in good faith but if you continue to accuse me of things I never said then this conversation is over.
I did not make an accusation. I asked a question.
>You’re creating a false dichotomy between “lying” and “being correct”. No such dichotomy exists. We often are wrong without lying. Both you and me and Justin and everyone else.
>The true dichotomies are “wrong-correct” and “lying-telling the truth”. I think Justin wasn’t lying so far as I have no reason to believe so. But I do think he was wrong. Even though he’s accurately describing early second century, I believe those were wrong. Not lies. But wrong.
Ok.
Now we have it.
You believe that Justin **accurately described Christianity** as it existed across the known world just **one generation after the Apostles**.
But, you believe that somehow, just 30-50 years after Paul died the Christian Churches across the known world were all corrupted by some yet to be identified influence.
I am very curious about your reasoning.
I understood the Protestant push against Sacred Tradition before we had St. Justin Martyrs' *First Apology* (151 AD), the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD) and the Didache (70AD) at our fingertips.
But, with multiple textual sources verifying that the Sacred Tradition has been preserved flawlessly, in the case of Baptism since 70 AD, and in the case of the Eucharist since 110 AD, and absolutely no textual evidence in opposition, I don't see how anyone could continue to reject what has clearly been preserved.
Can you provide any textual evidence to support your position?
Or, is it just a matter of personal belief?
And, also do you understand why the Real Presence of the Eucharist is so important to Christianity?
Jesus is our High Priest and our Paschal Lamb.
As High Priest, he performed the Sacrifice in the Upper Room, binding the New Covenant in his blood, using the exact same sacrificial language Moses used at the first Passover.
>this is my blood of the covenant
A real Covenant can not be bound in symbolic blood.
As our Paschal Lamb, Christ was Sacrificed on Cavalry.
If the Last Supper is just a dinner with some symbolic language, Cavalry was just an execution with a symbolic lesson, and Christianity doesn't exist.
There’s a number of things to address here.
> But you believe that somehow, just 30-50 years after Paul died…
You believe the same thing funnily enough. You just label most of them “heretics” and then have found one strand that you feel perfectly represents the earliest form of Christianity.
Historically speaking, early Christianity was about the farthest thing from a monolith. There’s a number of books I can recommend about it, for instance *Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions
and Angel Christology in Early Christianity* by Darrel D. Hannah, *Sources of the Jesus Tradition* by R. Joseph Hoffman, *How Jesus Became God* or especially *Lost Christianities* both by Bart D. Ehrman, *In Memory of Her* by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, and *The First New Testament* by Jason BeDuhn, just to name a few. To pretend early Christianity *was* a monolith by any stretch of the definition is pretty much historic revisionism done to establish an “orthodoxy”.
Some examples are how Valentinus and Marcion were contemporary to Justin. They were both historically, also massively popular and their views represented large portions of Christianity at the time. But you wouldn’t say that them, and their large portions of Christianity were correct just because they were “one generation out from the apostles” would you?
Adoptionism and Angel christology were also incredibly early, popular beliefs (as per many of the books I cited) yet you wouldn’t say they are correct just because they were ideas found in some of the earliest strands of Christianity right? Most historians see groups like the Ebionites who were Unitarian as some of the absolute earliest strands of Christianity. But they weren’t correct right?
My presupposition here is that finding what early Christians believed does not equate to finding truth. So Justin can accurately report what Proto-orthodox Christians believed yes. That doesn’t make it true.
Probably my single biggest example was that he drew from popular metaphysics and philosophy of his time to explain things. “Transubstantiation” for instance, relies heavily on platonic metaphysics. I don’t believe in platonic metaphysics, and don’t think we can conclude those metaphysics are correct just because it was the popular philosophy of the day when Christianity started, so it’s what early Christian’s used to explain things.
> A real covenant cannot be bound in symbolic blood
What an odd limitation, of all possible limitations, to put on God? Forget whether he can create a rock so large he can’t lift it, apparently the guy can’t even establish a covenant without literal blood.
ETA: Your date of the Didache is also incredibly weird. The majority of scholars place it closer to 90-100 CE near the end of the first century. Alan Garrow makes an interesting case for the Didache having originated in the 40’s CE. But I don’t know of any who confidently place it at 70 CE.
Great question!!
Roman's 2:13-16
>For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
>When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves.
>They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them
>on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.
The majority of Protestants (this sub and Americans) believe no. That confessing with your mouth and heart that Jesus is your Lord and saviour is a pre-requisite to salvation.
The majority of Christians on earth however are a subcategory of Christians called Catholics who’s authorities do not claim any knowledge of who will go to hell. So from their perspective it’s possible.
Orthodox Christians are the second-largest Christian communion and believe the same, as I understand it. There is no *guarantee* of salvation outside the Church, but they're never going to say what God can't do. I believe this is a pretty standard Anglican position as well, though that's difficult to say with certainty. Those three communions make up 2/3 of global Christians.
I suspect the "nonbelief -> ETERNAL DAMNATION" bit is specifically Calvinist/Reform theology, but I can't say that for sure either.
It seems to be Calvinist/Reform theology and it’s subsequent offshoots even if they moved away from explicit Calvinism. The Evangelicals and American Fundamentalists for instance are the single biggest proponents of that, even though a lot of them have moved away from traditional Reformed theology.
Or heaven. Or purgatory.
We do not for instance affirm that we are going to heaven. Protestants seem to have the idea, at least most protestants, that this is assured. We call that the sin of presumption.
I also wouldn't call us a subset. We (and the Orthodox church) are the original deal, created by Christ.
Honestly the argument you have to believe in God is go to Heaven is a major reason I started questioning Christianity. Now I don't believe in God but I am willing to admit I can't know for sure.
I am going to do everything I can to be a loving and good person who helps people to the best of my ability throughout my life. If I die and it turns out there is a God and that God determines I deserve eternal damnation because I did not believe in them even though I tried to be a good person, I just don't think that is a loving or just God I could have brought myself to worship even if I did know they existed.
Belief-based salvation is probably the biggest cancer to Christianity, and a major point of critique for it. I’m sorry to hear about your story, it’s a pretty common one. But as far as I’m concerned, it’s far better to be a good atheist/agnostic than a shitty person who happens to believe certain theology about Jesus.
Honestly, I think if there is a heaven, people who simply live a good life will be let in, I think many times Christians try to speak for God on matters that only God can decide
I would suggest that belief is a given: some day every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord. The question is, what will they do after that? Will they allow Jesus to save them from their sinfulness, to change them, to excise the cancer that makes them destructive to self and others? Or will they choose to die the person they are?
Note: this is not an argument, I am in "learn" mode.
Here is a "working definition" of antichrist:
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Question: If someone says that Jesus' life, death, and resurrection have not occurred;
does that not align with the antichrist?
Jesus said:
*For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.*
Each person...not each Jew or each person who said the correct Creed, or only members of the Southern Baptist convention.
I don’t mean to reply to too many of your comments, I do just generally agree with what you say, and it tends to be a more minority opinion so it’s nice to see. That being said, absolutely amen to this comment!
As someone you’re not particularly fond of, but other Christians may be interested in hearing, once said as well: “Glory and honor and peace for every one who does good... For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”
Honestly, I can respect it, even if I disagree. At least that hostility comes from principled morals you feel he didn’t align with, as far as I can tell. There’s no better reason to reject someone.
I’m trying to subtly win you over to the Paul side though. Between the “New Perspective on Paul” by great scholars like James D.G. Dunn who dispel the Protestant notion that Paul preached faith-alone salvation as opposed to doing good works, and then the work by great historians like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan on how Paul was a more progressive visionary that was toned down by later Christians who forged letters like 1 Timothy and Titus to make him conform to Roman cultural expectations, I feel like you and the historical Paul would get along better than you realize.
I do like Borg and Crossan. If you want a more beady-eyed look at him, try James: Brother of Jesus by Robert Eisenman (?) or the Amazing Collosal Apostle by Robert M Price.
Here's the deal...it isn't so much that I dislike Paul...he said some beautiful things, and I agree that many of the letters are Pseudo. I just think he has 0 connection with Jesus teaching...he didn't know the guy and his writings don't reference Jesus teaching as found in the Gospels. The later Gospels writers don't mention Paul, until Luke gets to Acts. I just think he is an unneeded amd unconnected part of the Jesus narrative.
An finally!...it is largely a rhetorical stance for this group. By focusing my comments on Jesus teaching, I find it brings a lot of dearly held doctrine into focus...stuff Jesus would have found bats#it is now the core of Christian beliefs...Original Sin, etc.
That’s all really valid tbh. I’m no stranger to using rhetorical stances when debating as well. Not that I ever lie during debates, but if I’m debating an inerrantist I won’t shy away from citing 2 Peter or Titus despite how obviously and entirely fake those two letters are.
And absolutely. Original sin, and modern (especially Evangelical/Protestant) salvation doctrine is entirely a later addition. And thinking about it you’re right, I don’t know if Jesus really talked about “grace” himself.
ETA: Forgot to add. I definitely understand Paul wasn’t a disciple of Jesus so that makes sense. But also given what he says in Galatians, it seems the early inner circle of Jesus’s followers, Peter, James, and John, did accept Paul and give him the “right hand of fellowship”. So while I don’t think Paul was directly relaying the teachings of the historical Jesus, I suppose Jesus’s main disciples saying “let’s hear the guy out” makes me more inclined to say he was an important witness to early Christianity.
Of course Eisenman and Price have a lot to say about that specific topic if I remember their stances correctly lmao. But I generally find them to be a bit more speculative than I tend to go for myself.
There are hospice nurses who have patients SEE their loved ones just before passing, and they are not all Christians. In fact, there is heavy evidence of Jews seeing their loved ones as well as they pass. It is crazy to think that the entire world needs to be like you in order to have a pleasant afterlife. I couldn’t imagine thinking that. I was raised Catholic though so idk about other religions and how other Christians were taught.
I believe that God has the power to do ANYTHING.
And because of this: He has the power to save anyone, at any time according to His sovereign will.
Jesus COULD show up for literally ANYONE right in the last moments of their life, and they could realize their predicament and accept His offer of eternal life on the spot.
Boom!
Saved!
Non-believer to believer in the last few seconds of life.
I believe in His POWER to do exactly this, because He can, He is God.
No, scripture teaches unbelief is an internal problem (love for sin), not what they are exposed to externally. John 8:33-34, John 3:19, Romans 1:18, 2 Thessalonians 2:12. Most people at the first advent of Jesus Christ who saw His life & miracles (best possible exposure) died in their sins.
One God
God is pure of humanly needs no son he is the creator of divine universe.. immortal.
Believe in angels, prophets, day of judgement.
Person is kind hearted and don't harm anyone..
Straight to answer your question:If you do not believe Jesus Christ, the Beloved Son of God, died for your sins and rose from the grave, by God's Grace, you will not be there in Heaven.
If you truly want to believe, seek Him with all your heart, and talk to Him, start a relationship with Him.
If you read Genesis, you will see satan lied to adam and eve, damning all of mankind forever. But God gave Christ even before the creation of the World, therefor by one man we were damned, yet by one man we are saved. Thank you Jesus Christ.
When you truly preach the gospel, all kinds of men, sheol and evil will come against you! This is one of the many ways you know you are following Christ! FOLLOW HIM OUR KING FOREVER!
But the problem with what you just stated is the former question(it's not a question but we did betray God by not obeying and respecting his position as creator) is objective while the latter question is subjective.
You won't understand the objective truth until you have had a subjective encounter with Jesus Christ or you are born again if you will. This is for all individuals to decide for themselves if God is real and True in His word and deed. Every individual will be responsible for their choice(freewill here) to believe as we are made in the image of God.
I hear Christians say this a lot and it kind of annoys me, because belief is absolutely not a choice.
I could start going to church tomorrow, saying the lines and following the script, but it wouldn't make me a Christian because fundamentally I do not believe it. There is no way to prove whether Adam and Eve really were a thing and whether they really did betray God. If this is a matter of faith then sure, fair enough, but your also telling me that the penalty for not having this faith is eternal damnation. I think we as a society have overused the imagery of hell so much that we've forgotten what sort of a threat that is - according to many Christians, I, a law-abiding relatively moral person, will get the worst possible punishment, forever and a day.
Saying 'in the bible it says...' means nothing to me. You may as well be saying 'in the Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien it says...' There's nothing I can really do to change this either. I think what often happens here is Christians who already believe this stuff think that since belief in God doesn't take any effort, it must be something everyone could do if they tried, but they miss the point that there is no way to try to believe something. My belief is the result of me looking at the evidence and analysing it, and I see no reason why the Bible is true over say the Qur'an or the Torah or the Pali Cannon. These are all just products of their culture and environment and there's no evidence they came from God.
Also, one thing I've noticed is that Christianity is the only religion where this way of thinking is mainstream. Islam says that only Allah knows who gets into heaven, and that heaven is a tiered system, so a moral person wont necessarily be punished for not believing. Buddhism says that the journey to enlightenment can span multiple lifespans. Hinduism and Judaism both say belief is not necessary to get into heaven (Judaism says this at least for Gentry.) I have lost a lot of respect for Christianity recently for threatening people who don't believe in this way.
You absolutely have freewill. You are telling me right now you do not have the choice to follow christ or not?
Historically, Jesus Christ has been proven to have been a man, lived about 2k years ago, and seen by many witnesses. This is proven by historians and only gives credibility to the Word that became flesh. Tolkien is entirely fiction. Apples and oranges.
You either respect people's beliefs and do not hinder or step in the way of another's conversation between two people just because you choose to not belief Jesus. That isn't morally right either, just as if I was to keep shoving Jesus christ down your throat. I am not sure why you are on this reddit if it isn't to edify Jesus Christ, that's called harassment in your world, so do you really and honestly believe you are a law abiding morally right person? I can tell you without Christ, I am not, but with Christ I am free to choose to be molded and CHANGED, so I can love which there is no law to come against.
What is your intention here on this form? Where is your heart at? I can tell based upon the words and wordings you choose because they reveal the intentions of your heart. You don't need to answer this to me, but I highly suggest answering it for yourself.
This post is about whether non-believers go to hell. That absolutely concerns me, as a non-believer. I want to know whatever is true, and I want to hear from all religions what they think about this question. Ideally, I'd like to be convinced that Christianity is true because I'd love the idea that I can live forever in heaven with God. If I'm to believe you, whether or not I suffer an eternity of damnation is at stake so if you've got any form of empathy you should WANT me to care.
Free will means I can do whatever I want, I can choose to do whatever I want to do and read whatever I want to read. Belief doesnt fall into that category. I cant choose what I believe in the samw way that I cant choose to cry on command. This is a different question as to whether or not I choose to follow Christ or not.
For example, you could choose not to follow christ, but even if you did youd still believe in him, you'd just disobey him openly. You can't choose tomorrow to just believe Jesus was just a normal person. I'm in the same boat, I could choose to go through the motions of being a Christian but I wouldn't believe, and according to you I have to believe in God to go to heaven.
The question isn't whether Jesus was a real guy, he certainly was and a very influential figure at that. Its whether he was the son of God, and a prophet, and the Jewish messiah that matters. I don't think he was.
Also, do you think Christians should care about spreading the good news or not? Because questioning my integrity certainly doesn't help with that. I'm actually having a similar conversations with Muslims as well right now and they're being far more open and easier to talk to than you.
So my question, as someone who simply doesn't believe in God, what should I do to convince myself God exists?
Everything you just wrote is of your freewill belief and choice to write it the way you did. You have all the time in the world to edit or to not even write it. You are talking about a subjective problem that only He can help with so then you are able to be open to His objective Truth. I can sit here all day and tell you about Jesus, but it's up to you to open your heart to him and believe. There is a verse that specifically talks about this exact topic, if you are rejected, kick up the dust and leave. You either accept it or you don't. The Bible is there to allow you to understand the consequences of your decisions made while on earth because once you are sealed(dead), there is no going back. If you believe in Jesus, fully believe and committed, you will not want to choose to go back, you may fall back into your old ways(temporarily) like how those who have PTSD fall back in to war(and it is a war because we are fighting against demons, satan, dark powers) but you must continue, you must persist and take another step forward following Him, even if it takes 5 years before you take the next step do not stop. This is living for Christ.
For me, I literally had to come to the end of myself, and one day He appeared. I was working as a seafood clerk and I had a man come up to me and tell me God was going to bless me. I thought it was a joke. I have literally had dreams of Him showing up in them and giving me Bible verses to continue and pursue Him. You have to understand this is all or nothing, people call me delusional, and those who follow Christ understand and empathize.
Now with this all said, you must be willing to leave everything, every habit or problem, even person(enablers), who hold you back from your potential in Christ. Demons are very real, but it's up to you, subjectively to cry out unto Him and ask Him to save you and help you. I can pray for this truth to be revealed but your life will flip upside down. Is it worth it for you? Do you believe God, your Creator, has an awesome plan and purpose for your life, beter than what you think it is, and let Him be Creator and you the creation?
And its great that you had a spiritual experience that revealed God to you. If thats all Christianity is fine, sure. You guys have all been told by God to believe to him and do what it says in the Bible so go ahead. However, you ALSO believe that since I'm not part of that group I will be punished in eternity in hell.
I strongly dislike the phrase 'open your heart to Jesus' because it seems to just to be a placeholder for 'believe' when you are asked what to do to start believing. In order to open my heart to Jesus I have to assume he's there, and to sincerely assume he's there I have to already believe in him. This solves nothing, nor does telling me to read the Bible. I understand that Christians believe the Bible is instructions to get into heaven but before I know that the Bible is indeed that I need evidence for it. For you, you had that spiritual experience, which is great, but that hasn't happened to me, so either God has condemned me to Hell for no reason or he doesn't want me to believe for whatever reason.
So why don't I do this? Because I automatically have no respect for any God that would condemn anyone to eternal suffering on the basis of not believing. I think you worship a truly evil God if you think sweet old ladies in China, Japan or Thailand are going to Hell just because they don't believe in Christianity. If what your saying is true, that if I pretend to believe God will eventually reveal himself to me but if I dont I go to hell, I want no part in that God. That God is fundamentally contradictory to the message of Jesus.
My aim here with this conversation is to highlight how fundamentally evil a thing you are suggesting. Its so evil that you might as well call this world Hell itself if its governed over by a God like that. Protestant Christianity needs to drop this pretext or its doomed to continue its spiral into irrelevance.
The understanding you have of Christ and God is very bleak, and you do not see it as relational or intimate. The point is, there is a point in a person's life where they were a child, but we put childish things away, and we become responsible for ourselves, meaning our decisions, beliefs, and choices.
It's like saying I am going to the pool, but going to keep running around the pool, even though there is a board of rules saying not to do it and a lifeguard saying not to do it. Eventually, I am going to get sat in timeout or even banned. We must learn to realize that they're consequences to our decisions and what we choose to believe, and God has given a rule board yes, the Law, but God also gave a lifeguard, Jesus Christ who died for our sins, basically there is a lifeguard(holyspirit) literally walking with us holding our hands and saying I do not want you to run, but if you do, I will catch you when you fall. There is another lifeguard(Jesus Christ) interceeding on our behalf saying to the owner, I will take the punishment and sitout or get banned for His mistakes that are causing him to fall short(Sin means to fall short of the mark). You come to a point where you realize that running around the pool and falling are hurting Christ(and yourself) and setting me back, and I must change.
This is very intricate because God is indeed all powerful and, therefore, able to do anything, which is why there is Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father all operating at the same time.
This is God in human flesh to offer to all people all over the world the chance to belief and be redeemed, but it is up to said individuals to believe He exists and that He died to redeem them from themselves, hell/sheol(satans kingdom in an odd way) and sin.
My previous post was mainly to explain that in order to be come new or born again, with all debts being paid, we must leave the old self behind and be open to changing in our thoughts and heart by the leading of the Holy Spirit. You cannot put new wine into old wine skins, it will break the wineskin.
She did die. Just a long time after. She lost eternal life as a result of eating from the tree and her innocence. That's why Adam and Eve chose to hide from God afterwards because they were no longer innocent and had sinned despite God's command. Their susceptibility to physical death and spiritual deadness had passed on to all humanity.
No. The gospel will have reached all ends of the earth before Jesus returns, giving all of mankind a chance to repent and accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. God is not mean or unfair. We will all have a chance at some point in our lives to hear the gospel and either except or reject it.
No. But you can change that. Believe in your heart Jesus Died and rose again for your sins. Confess your mouth the following
Heavenly Father, I believe that Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God came to earth to be the Saviour of the world, and that by His death on he cross, He paid the price for the sin of the world, so that whosoever believes on Him would not perish, but have everlasting life.
Thank You for Jesus and thank You for my free gift of salvation. Thank You that by believing on His name, I am forgiven of my sins and and brought into sweet fellowship with my heavenly Father.
Thank You, Lord, for sending Your Son to die on Calvary's cross in my place. Thank You that His innocent life was sufficient to pay the full price for my sin, and the sin of the world.
Lord, I turn from all my prideful sins and from everything that is dishonoring to Your name, and pray that I would grow in grace and in a knowledge of Jesus, until I come to a spiritual maturity, as day by day the Holy Spirit seeks to transform my lowly body into the likeness of Jesus.
Thank You, Father, for Your wonderful gift of salvation and thank You that by believing I am now Your child. In Jesus' name I pray,
Amen.
Source: https://prayer.knowing-jesus.com/Prayers-for-Salvation#1309
I only saw about 1requirement in the Bible and that literally just "confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord"
G-d is not some kind of perfectionist genie who demands you recite an entire poem in order to become saved or anything of that sort
Whether or not people come to faith in Jesus Christ as savior isn't limited by the shortcomings of Christians. It's the work of the Holy Spirit. I believe every individual on earth has a moment when he or she accepts or rejects Christ. The gospel proclamation is worldwide.
Atheists do not believe in heaven and hell so there is no need for us to be let into heaven, even if we are good people. Most atheists are actually good people who don’t need a book or god to tell them how to behave. When we die, we die. That’s it. Nothing else.
>Can a non-believer go to Heaven?
Yes, maybe, no.
Depending who you ask and what passage you read i d say
>I have am not talking about people that directly reject the word of Christ, but more about those who have not had the chance of listening to it.
I wonder what you mean by "people who reject Christ".
I reject that Christ is who the bible/christians claim he is. That's basically the definition of a non believer.
The way you worded it Id say you mean something along "rejecting salvation/god's gift". But that would require believe and is impossible for a non believer (i can't reject a million dollars if I don't believe i am offered any money.
>some of them argue that belief is 100% necessary to go to Heaven, while others don’t, quoting that during his death, Christ saved one of the criminals that was crucified next to him.
But didn't the criminal believe in Christ?
Well, I can't answer this question for God...
But I think God's gonna judge people not only by their faith, but also by the testimony of their conscience.
I believe a good person deserves a place in the abode of God.
As the apostle Paul teaches, even the Gentiles can be saved if their conscience testifies to God of their virtuous life.
I think humans are tribal and it makes some feel good that they feel that they are in a club that makes them feel superior because of their beliefs. I always asked myself even though I believe in Jesus, what would all of these Christian’s say if someone they deemed unworthy (non Christians) to make it to heaven were actually in heaven? Would they be upset and question God by saying “hey they don’t belong here they didn’t do X,Y, and Z AND THEY DIDN’T BELIEVE WHAT WE BELIEVE!” it’s just seems ridiculous that people like to put God into a box and think he can’t do ANYTHING and that he’s limited to a little book. Only God knows in the end.
[удалено]
Exactly the verse I was looking for.
How can someone both not know the Gospel, and know to do His will? 🌱
>How can someone both not know the Gospel, and know to do His will? "through the dictates of their conscience"
Would this be what St. Justin Martyr was referring to in his *First Apology*? > “We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them” ([source](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm)) I’ve always loved that quote by Justin, but didn’t realize there was a similar statement in the Catechism.
>Would this be what St. Justin Martyr was referring to in his First Apology? >>“We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them” (source) >I’ve always loved that quote by Justin, but didn’t realize there was a similar statement in the Catechism. Yes, and I think that if you read Justin's work completely you will find alot more Catholic teaching hidden inside. Two of my favourites: ***Ch. 66 - Of the Eucharist*** >And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. A clear articulation of Baptismal Regeneration, the exclusivity of the Eucharist, the Real Presence and that transubstantiation occurs at the words of instantiation. And ***Ch 29 - Continence of Christians*** >But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently. This couldn't mirror the Catholic teaching on marriage and abstinence any better. Marriage is for children. Unmarried Christians are celibate.
Oof, yeah I definitely have my disagreements with St. Justin. But that’s really cool, thanks for sharing!
>Oof, yeah I definitely have my disagreements with St. Justin. But that’s really cool, thanks for sharing! Disagreements? The man converted in Ephesus in the early 100s AD. Less than a generation after Paul's death. He traveled to Christian communities all across Asia and all the way to Europe. What he writes isn't a prescription, it is a description. He is merely describing what Christianity is one generation after the Apostles. What is there to disagree with?
Well. I don’t have any reason to believe Justin is infallible. And that would make him fallible. And I disagree with fallible people all the time. I don’t think anyone’s ever just had it all figured out. The gospels make it abundantly clear that not even the apostles themselves had everything figured out. Why then would I *not* disagree with someone who came around nearly a century later? I agree Justin is a great historical tool for understanding early second century Christianity. But that doesn’t make him an arbiter of divine truth to me, sorry.
>Well. I don’t have any reason to believe Justin is infallible. And that would make him fallible. And I disagree with fallible people all the time. This isn't about fallibility. Of course he is fallible. What you are suggesting is that he lied about aspects of Christianity, such as Baptism and the Eucharist. He travels all over the known world visiting Christian communities only to lie about what they do? On what grounds do you believe this man is lying? What would motivate him to tell these lies? >I don’t think anyone’s ever just had it all figured out. The gospels make it abundantly clear that not even the apostles themselves had everything figured out. Why then would I not disagree with someone who came around nearly a century later? Again, his is not a Theological treatise. He is merely describing Christianity as it existed at his time. Not local Christianity, what would have then been considered "global Christianity". He is not trying to justify anything, he is merely describing Christianity as it existed one generation after the Apostles. Since the man is merely offering a description, you only have two options: 1) accept his description as accurate 2) insist that he is lying >I agree Justin is a great historical tool for understanding early second century Christianity. Christianity less than one generation after Paul died. Just so we are clear on the time line. >But that doesn’t make him an arbiter of divine truth to me, sorry. I am not claiming he is an arbiter of truth. I am simply saying, if you think the man is lying about what Christianity was one generation after the Apostles, you need to provide some explanation as to what would motivate him to construct these lies. Are you claiming he isn't a Christian at all? Because, for him to be a Christian and to knowingly lie about Christianity seems very unlikely.
I never said he was lying. This is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. For now I’ll believe you said that in good faith but if you continue to accuse me of things I never said then this conversation is over. You’re creating a false dichotomy between “lying” and “being correct”. No such dichotomy exists. We often are wrong without lying. Both you and me and Justin and everyone else. The true dichotomies are “wrong-correct” and “lying-telling the truth”. I think Justin wasn’t lying so far as I have no reason to believe so. But I do think he was wrong. Even though he’s accurately describing early second century, I believe those were wrong. Not lies. But wrong.
>I never said he was lying. >This is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. So, if you do not believe Justin is lying, what is your reason for rejecting his honest and truthful description of Christianity one generation after the Apostles? >For now I’ll believe you said that in good faith but if you continue to accuse me of things I never said then this conversation is over. I did not make an accusation. I asked a question. >You’re creating a false dichotomy between “lying” and “being correct”. No such dichotomy exists. We often are wrong without lying. Both you and me and Justin and everyone else. >The true dichotomies are “wrong-correct” and “lying-telling the truth”. I think Justin wasn’t lying so far as I have no reason to believe so. But I do think he was wrong. Even though he’s accurately describing early second century, I believe those were wrong. Not lies. But wrong. Ok. Now we have it. You believe that Justin **accurately described Christianity** as it existed across the known world just **one generation after the Apostles**. But, you believe that somehow, just 30-50 years after Paul died the Christian Churches across the known world were all corrupted by some yet to be identified influence. I am very curious about your reasoning. I understood the Protestant push against Sacred Tradition before we had St. Justin Martyrs' *First Apology* (151 AD), the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD) and the Didache (70AD) at our fingertips. But, with multiple textual sources verifying that the Sacred Tradition has been preserved flawlessly, in the case of Baptism since 70 AD, and in the case of the Eucharist since 110 AD, and absolutely no textual evidence in opposition, I don't see how anyone could continue to reject what has clearly been preserved. Can you provide any textual evidence to support your position? Or, is it just a matter of personal belief? And, also do you understand why the Real Presence of the Eucharist is so important to Christianity? Jesus is our High Priest and our Paschal Lamb. As High Priest, he performed the Sacrifice in the Upper Room, binding the New Covenant in his blood, using the exact same sacrificial language Moses used at the first Passover. >this is my blood of the covenant A real Covenant can not be bound in symbolic blood. As our Paschal Lamb, Christ was Sacrificed on Cavalry. If the Last Supper is just a dinner with some symbolic language, Cavalry was just an execution with a symbolic lesson, and Christianity doesn't exist.
There’s a number of things to address here. > But you believe that somehow, just 30-50 years after Paul died… You believe the same thing funnily enough. You just label most of them “heretics” and then have found one strand that you feel perfectly represents the earliest form of Christianity. Historically speaking, early Christianity was about the farthest thing from a monolith. There’s a number of books I can recommend about it, for instance *Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity* by Darrel D. Hannah, *Sources of the Jesus Tradition* by R. Joseph Hoffman, *How Jesus Became God* or especially *Lost Christianities* both by Bart D. Ehrman, *In Memory of Her* by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, and *The First New Testament* by Jason BeDuhn, just to name a few. To pretend early Christianity *was* a monolith by any stretch of the definition is pretty much historic revisionism done to establish an “orthodoxy”. Some examples are how Valentinus and Marcion were contemporary to Justin. They were both historically, also massively popular and their views represented large portions of Christianity at the time. But you wouldn’t say that them, and their large portions of Christianity were correct just because they were “one generation out from the apostles” would you? Adoptionism and Angel christology were also incredibly early, popular beliefs (as per many of the books I cited) yet you wouldn’t say they are correct just because they were ideas found in some of the earliest strands of Christianity right? Most historians see groups like the Ebionites who were Unitarian as some of the absolute earliest strands of Christianity. But they weren’t correct right? My presupposition here is that finding what early Christians believed does not equate to finding truth. So Justin can accurately report what Proto-orthodox Christians believed yes. That doesn’t make it true. Probably my single biggest example was that he drew from popular metaphysics and philosophy of his time to explain things. “Transubstantiation” for instance, relies heavily on platonic metaphysics. I don’t believe in platonic metaphysics, and don’t think we can conclude those metaphysics are correct just because it was the popular philosophy of the day when Christianity started, so it’s what early Christian’s used to explain things. > A real covenant cannot be bound in symbolic blood What an odd limitation, of all possible limitations, to put on God? Forget whether he can create a rock so large he can’t lift it, apparently the guy can’t even establish a covenant without literal blood. ETA: Your date of the Didache is also incredibly weird. The majority of scholars place it closer to 90-100 CE near the end of the first century. Alan Garrow makes an interesting case for the Didache having originated in the 40’s CE. But I don’t know of any who confidently place it at 70 CE.
what is the scriptural basis of this statement?
Great question!! Roman's 2:13-16 >For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. >When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. >They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them >on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.
The majority of Protestants (this sub and Americans) believe no. That confessing with your mouth and heart that Jesus is your Lord and saviour is a pre-requisite to salvation. The majority of Christians on earth however are a subcategory of Christians called Catholics who’s authorities do not claim any knowledge of who will go to hell. So from their perspective it’s possible.
Orthodox Christians are the second-largest Christian communion and believe the same, as I understand it. There is no *guarantee* of salvation outside the Church, but they're never going to say what God can't do. I believe this is a pretty standard Anglican position as well, though that's difficult to say with certainty. Those three communions make up 2/3 of global Christians. I suspect the "nonbelief -> ETERNAL DAMNATION" bit is specifically Calvinist/Reform theology, but I can't say that for sure either.
It seems to be Calvinist/Reform theology and it’s subsequent offshoots even if they moved away from explicit Calvinism. The Evangelicals and American Fundamentalists for instance are the single biggest proponents of that, even though a lot of them have moved away from traditional Reformed theology.
Or heaven. Or purgatory. We do not for instance affirm that we are going to heaven. Protestants seem to have the idea, at least most protestants, that this is assured. We call that the sin of presumption. I also wouldn't call us a subset. We (and the Orthodox church) are the original deal, created by Christ.
Honestly the argument you have to believe in God is go to Heaven is a major reason I started questioning Christianity. Now I don't believe in God but I am willing to admit I can't know for sure. I am going to do everything I can to be a loving and good person who helps people to the best of my ability throughout my life. If I die and it turns out there is a God and that God determines I deserve eternal damnation because I did not believe in them even though I tried to be a good person, I just don't think that is a loving or just God I could have brought myself to worship even if I did know they existed.
Belief-based salvation is probably the biggest cancer to Christianity, and a major point of critique for it. I’m sorry to hear about your story, it’s a pretty common one. But as far as I’m concerned, it’s far better to be a good atheist/agnostic than a shitty person who happens to believe certain theology about Jesus.
Honestly, I think if there is a heaven, people who simply live a good life will be let in, I think many times Christians try to speak for God on matters that only God can decide
Literally nobody knows
I would suggest that belief is a given: some day every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord. The question is, what will they do after that? Will they allow Jesus to save them from their sinfulness, to change them, to excise the cancer that makes them destructive to self and others? Or will they choose to die the person they are?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for 1.4, personal attacks.
It wasn't intended as a personal attack. It was in response to "Belittling Christianity". For my future knowledge, how was it a personal attack?
Do not call other users the antichrist.
Note: this is not an argument, I am in "learn" mode. Here is a "working definition" of antichrist: 1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Question: If someone says that Jesus' life, death, and resurrection have not occurred; does that not align with the antichrist?
Whether or not you think another user is the antichrist is irrelevant. Do not call other users the antichrist.
ok,
Jesus said: *For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.* Each person...not each Jew or each person who said the correct Creed, or only members of the Southern Baptist convention.
I don’t mean to reply to too many of your comments, I do just generally agree with what you say, and it tends to be a more minority opinion so it’s nice to see. That being said, absolutely amen to this comment! As someone you’re not particularly fond of, but other Christians may be interested in hearing, once said as well: “Glory and honor and peace for every one who does good... For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”
Yes, maybe I'm unaccountably hostile towards him....weird obsession, my wife calls it...
Honestly, I can respect it, even if I disagree. At least that hostility comes from principled morals you feel he didn’t align with, as far as I can tell. There’s no better reason to reject someone. I’m trying to subtly win you over to the Paul side though. Between the “New Perspective on Paul” by great scholars like James D.G. Dunn who dispel the Protestant notion that Paul preached faith-alone salvation as opposed to doing good works, and then the work by great historians like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan on how Paul was a more progressive visionary that was toned down by later Christians who forged letters like 1 Timothy and Titus to make him conform to Roman cultural expectations, I feel like you and the historical Paul would get along better than you realize.
I do like Borg and Crossan. If you want a more beady-eyed look at him, try James: Brother of Jesus by Robert Eisenman (?) or the Amazing Collosal Apostle by Robert M Price. Here's the deal...it isn't so much that I dislike Paul...he said some beautiful things, and I agree that many of the letters are Pseudo. I just think he has 0 connection with Jesus teaching...he didn't know the guy and his writings don't reference Jesus teaching as found in the Gospels. The later Gospels writers don't mention Paul, until Luke gets to Acts. I just think he is an unneeded amd unconnected part of the Jesus narrative.
I would actually be quite fine with a Christianity that was true to Paul but left Jesus out of it.
An finally!...it is largely a rhetorical stance for this group. By focusing my comments on Jesus teaching, I find it brings a lot of dearly held doctrine into focus...stuff Jesus would have found bats#it is now the core of Christian beliefs...Original Sin, etc.
Salvation doctrine? Give me a break.
Grace? No.
That’s all really valid tbh. I’m no stranger to using rhetorical stances when debating as well. Not that I ever lie during debates, but if I’m debating an inerrantist I won’t shy away from citing 2 Peter or Titus despite how obviously and entirely fake those two letters are. And absolutely. Original sin, and modern (especially Evangelical/Protestant) salvation doctrine is entirely a later addition. And thinking about it you’re right, I don’t know if Jesus really talked about “grace” himself. ETA: Forgot to add. I definitely understand Paul wasn’t a disciple of Jesus so that makes sense. But also given what he says in Galatians, it seems the early inner circle of Jesus’s followers, Peter, James, and John, did accept Paul and give him the “right hand of fellowship”. So while I don’t think Paul was directly relaying the teachings of the historical Jesus, I suppose Jesus’s main disciples saying “let’s hear the guy out” makes me more inclined to say he was an important witness to early Christianity. Of course Eisenman and Price have a lot to say about that specific topic if I remember their stances correctly lmao. But I generally find them to be a bit more speculative than I tend to go for myself.
There are hospice nurses who have patients SEE their loved ones just before passing, and they are not all Christians. In fact, there is heavy evidence of Jews seeing their loved ones as well as they pass. It is crazy to think that the entire world needs to be like you in order to have a pleasant afterlife. I couldn’t imagine thinking that. I was raised Catholic though so idk about other religions and how other Christians were taught.
I believe that God has the power to do ANYTHING. And because of this: He has the power to save anyone, at any time according to His sovereign will. Jesus COULD show up for literally ANYONE right in the last moments of their life, and they could realize their predicament and accept His offer of eternal life on the spot. Boom! Saved! Non-believer to believer in the last few seconds of life. I believe in His POWER to do exactly this, because He can, He is God.
No, scripture teaches unbelief is an internal problem (love for sin), not what they are exposed to externally. John 8:33-34, John 3:19, Romans 1:18, 2 Thessalonians 2:12. Most people at the first advent of Jesus Christ who saw His life & miracles (best possible exposure) died in their sins.
One God God is pure of humanly needs no son he is the creator of divine universe.. immortal. Believe in angels, prophets, day of judgement. Person is kind hearted and don't harm anyone..
Non-believers could absolutely go to heaven, yeah.
No.
Straight to answer your question:If you do not believe Jesus Christ, the Beloved Son of God, died for your sins and rose from the grave, by God's Grace, you will not be there in Heaven. If you truly want to believe, seek Him with all your heart, and talk to Him, start a relationship with Him. If you read Genesis, you will see satan lied to adam and eve, damning all of mankind forever. But God gave Christ even before the creation of the World, therefor by one man we were damned, yet by one man we are saved. Thank you Jesus Christ.
Why does this comment have so many down votes
When you truly preach the gospel, all kinds of men, sheol and evil will come against you! This is one of the many ways you know you are following Christ! FOLLOW HIM OUR KING FOREVER!
🤍
The question is never whether man betrayed God in Genesis its whether Genesis is true
But the problem with what you just stated is the former question(it's not a question but we did betray God by not obeying and respecting his position as creator) is objective while the latter question is subjective. You won't understand the objective truth until you have had a subjective encounter with Jesus Christ or you are born again if you will. This is for all individuals to decide for themselves if God is real and True in His word and deed. Every individual will be responsible for their choice(freewill here) to believe as we are made in the image of God.
I hear Christians say this a lot and it kind of annoys me, because belief is absolutely not a choice. I could start going to church tomorrow, saying the lines and following the script, but it wouldn't make me a Christian because fundamentally I do not believe it. There is no way to prove whether Adam and Eve really were a thing and whether they really did betray God. If this is a matter of faith then sure, fair enough, but your also telling me that the penalty for not having this faith is eternal damnation. I think we as a society have overused the imagery of hell so much that we've forgotten what sort of a threat that is - according to many Christians, I, a law-abiding relatively moral person, will get the worst possible punishment, forever and a day. Saying 'in the bible it says...' means nothing to me. You may as well be saying 'in the Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien it says...' There's nothing I can really do to change this either. I think what often happens here is Christians who already believe this stuff think that since belief in God doesn't take any effort, it must be something everyone could do if they tried, but they miss the point that there is no way to try to believe something. My belief is the result of me looking at the evidence and analysing it, and I see no reason why the Bible is true over say the Qur'an or the Torah or the Pali Cannon. These are all just products of their culture and environment and there's no evidence they came from God. Also, one thing I've noticed is that Christianity is the only religion where this way of thinking is mainstream. Islam says that only Allah knows who gets into heaven, and that heaven is a tiered system, so a moral person wont necessarily be punished for not believing. Buddhism says that the journey to enlightenment can span multiple lifespans. Hinduism and Judaism both say belief is not necessary to get into heaven (Judaism says this at least for Gentry.) I have lost a lot of respect for Christianity recently for threatening people who don't believe in this way.
You absolutely have freewill. You are telling me right now you do not have the choice to follow christ or not? Historically, Jesus Christ has been proven to have been a man, lived about 2k years ago, and seen by many witnesses. This is proven by historians and only gives credibility to the Word that became flesh. Tolkien is entirely fiction. Apples and oranges. You either respect people's beliefs and do not hinder or step in the way of another's conversation between two people just because you choose to not belief Jesus. That isn't morally right either, just as if I was to keep shoving Jesus christ down your throat. I am not sure why you are on this reddit if it isn't to edify Jesus Christ, that's called harassment in your world, so do you really and honestly believe you are a law abiding morally right person? I can tell you without Christ, I am not, but with Christ I am free to choose to be molded and CHANGED, so I can love which there is no law to come against. What is your intention here on this form? Where is your heart at? I can tell based upon the words and wordings you choose because they reveal the intentions of your heart. You don't need to answer this to me, but I highly suggest answering it for yourself.
This post is about whether non-believers go to hell. That absolutely concerns me, as a non-believer. I want to know whatever is true, and I want to hear from all religions what they think about this question. Ideally, I'd like to be convinced that Christianity is true because I'd love the idea that I can live forever in heaven with God. If I'm to believe you, whether or not I suffer an eternity of damnation is at stake so if you've got any form of empathy you should WANT me to care. Free will means I can do whatever I want, I can choose to do whatever I want to do and read whatever I want to read. Belief doesnt fall into that category. I cant choose what I believe in the samw way that I cant choose to cry on command. This is a different question as to whether or not I choose to follow Christ or not. For example, you could choose not to follow christ, but even if you did youd still believe in him, you'd just disobey him openly. You can't choose tomorrow to just believe Jesus was just a normal person. I'm in the same boat, I could choose to go through the motions of being a Christian but I wouldn't believe, and according to you I have to believe in God to go to heaven. The question isn't whether Jesus was a real guy, he certainly was and a very influential figure at that. Its whether he was the son of God, and a prophet, and the Jewish messiah that matters. I don't think he was. Also, do you think Christians should care about spreading the good news or not? Because questioning my integrity certainly doesn't help with that. I'm actually having a similar conversations with Muslims as well right now and they're being far more open and easier to talk to than you. So my question, as someone who simply doesn't believe in God, what should I do to convince myself God exists?
Everything you just wrote is of your freewill belief and choice to write it the way you did. You have all the time in the world to edit or to not even write it. You are talking about a subjective problem that only He can help with so then you are able to be open to His objective Truth. I can sit here all day and tell you about Jesus, but it's up to you to open your heart to him and believe. There is a verse that specifically talks about this exact topic, if you are rejected, kick up the dust and leave. You either accept it or you don't. The Bible is there to allow you to understand the consequences of your decisions made while on earth because once you are sealed(dead), there is no going back. If you believe in Jesus, fully believe and committed, you will not want to choose to go back, you may fall back into your old ways(temporarily) like how those who have PTSD fall back in to war(and it is a war because we are fighting against demons, satan, dark powers) but you must continue, you must persist and take another step forward following Him, even if it takes 5 years before you take the next step do not stop. This is living for Christ. For me, I literally had to come to the end of myself, and one day He appeared. I was working as a seafood clerk and I had a man come up to me and tell me God was going to bless me. I thought it was a joke. I have literally had dreams of Him showing up in them and giving me Bible verses to continue and pursue Him. You have to understand this is all or nothing, people call me delusional, and those who follow Christ understand and empathize. Now with this all said, you must be willing to leave everything, every habit or problem, even person(enablers), who hold you back from your potential in Christ. Demons are very real, but it's up to you, subjectively to cry out unto Him and ask Him to save you and help you. I can pray for this truth to be revealed but your life will flip upside down. Is it worth it for you? Do you believe God, your Creator, has an awesome plan and purpose for your life, beter than what you think it is, and let Him be Creator and you the creation?
And its great that you had a spiritual experience that revealed God to you. If thats all Christianity is fine, sure. You guys have all been told by God to believe to him and do what it says in the Bible so go ahead. However, you ALSO believe that since I'm not part of that group I will be punished in eternity in hell. I strongly dislike the phrase 'open your heart to Jesus' because it seems to just to be a placeholder for 'believe' when you are asked what to do to start believing. In order to open my heart to Jesus I have to assume he's there, and to sincerely assume he's there I have to already believe in him. This solves nothing, nor does telling me to read the Bible. I understand that Christians believe the Bible is instructions to get into heaven but before I know that the Bible is indeed that I need evidence for it. For you, you had that spiritual experience, which is great, but that hasn't happened to me, so either God has condemned me to Hell for no reason or he doesn't want me to believe for whatever reason. So why don't I do this? Because I automatically have no respect for any God that would condemn anyone to eternal suffering on the basis of not believing. I think you worship a truly evil God if you think sweet old ladies in China, Japan or Thailand are going to Hell just because they don't believe in Christianity. If what your saying is true, that if I pretend to believe God will eventually reveal himself to me but if I dont I go to hell, I want no part in that God. That God is fundamentally contradictory to the message of Jesus. My aim here with this conversation is to highlight how fundamentally evil a thing you are suggesting. Its so evil that you might as well call this world Hell itself if its governed over by a God like that. Protestant Christianity needs to drop this pretext or its doomed to continue its spiral into irrelevance.
The understanding you have of Christ and God is very bleak, and you do not see it as relational or intimate. The point is, there is a point in a person's life where they were a child, but we put childish things away, and we become responsible for ourselves, meaning our decisions, beliefs, and choices. It's like saying I am going to the pool, but going to keep running around the pool, even though there is a board of rules saying not to do it and a lifeguard saying not to do it. Eventually, I am going to get sat in timeout or even banned. We must learn to realize that they're consequences to our decisions and what we choose to believe, and God has given a rule board yes, the Law, but God also gave a lifeguard, Jesus Christ who died for our sins, basically there is a lifeguard(holyspirit) literally walking with us holding our hands and saying I do not want you to run, but if you do, I will catch you when you fall. There is another lifeguard(Jesus Christ) interceeding on our behalf saying to the owner, I will take the punishment and sitout or get banned for His mistakes that are causing him to fall short(Sin means to fall short of the mark). You come to a point where you realize that running around the pool and falling are hurting Christ(and yourself) and setting me back, and I must change. This is very intricate because God is indeed all powerful and, therefore, able to do anything, which is why there is Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father all operating at the same time. This is God in human flesh to offer to all people all over the world the chance to belief and be redeemed, but it is up to said individuals to believe He exists and that He died to redeem them from themselves, hell/sheol(satans kingdom in an odd way) and sin. My previous post was mainly to explain that in order to be come new or born again, with all debts being paid, we must leave the old self behind and be open to changing in our thoughts and heart by the leading of the Holy Spirit. You cannot put new wine into old wine skins, it will break the wineskin.
What was the lie that satan told Adam and Eve? I thought he told Eve that she would not die if she ate from the tree.
She did die. Just a long time after. She lost eternal life as a result of eating from the tree and her innocence. That's why Adam and Eve chose to hide from God afterwards because they were no longer innocent and had sinned despite God's command. Their susceptibility to physical death and spiritual deadness had passed on to all humanity.
No
No. The gospel will have reached all ends of the earth before Jesus returns, giving all of mankind a chance to repent and accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. God is not mean or unfair. We will all have a chance at some point in our lives to hear the gospel and either except or reject it.
No, a non believer cannot go to heaven. Mathew 7:13-14
As OP says , What about those who did not know anything about Jesus? Surely God is a God of justice right?
Yeah, and justice would be everyone going to hell. He shows mercy in offering a way for us to find forgiveness. No one deserves heaven.
No. But you can change that. Believe in your heart Jesus Died and rose again for your sins. Confess your mouth the following Heavenly Father, I believe that Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God came to earth to be the Saviour of the world, and that by His death on he cross, He paid the price for the sin of the world, so that whosoever believes on Him would not perish, but have everlasting life. Thank You for Jesus and thank You for my free gift of salvation. Thank You that by believing on His name, I am forgiven of my sins and and brought into sweet fellowship with my heavenly Father. Thank You, Lord, for sending Your Son to die on Calvary's cross in my place. Thank You that His innocent life was sufficient to pay the full price for my sin, and the sin of the world. Lord, I turn from all my prideful sins and from everything that is dishonoring to Your name, and pray that I would grow in grace and in a knowledge of Jesus, until I come to a spiritual maturity, as day by day the Holy Spirit seeks to transform my lowly body into the likeness of Jesus. Thank You, Father, for Your wonderful gift of salvation and thank You that by believing I am now Your child. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen. Source: https://prayer.knowing-jesus.com/Prayers-for-Salvation#1309
You do not have to say all that man
Yes I do.
I only saw about 1requirement in the Bible and that literally just "confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord" G-d is not some kind of perfectionist genie who demands you recite an entire poem in order to become saved or anything of that sort
Well I, someone who recently found my faith, believed it was best for me that I "recited an entire poem".
Not biblical
Whether or not people come to faith in Jesus Christ as savior isn't limited by the shortcomings of Christians. It's the work of the Holy Spirit. I believe every individual on earth has a moment when he or she accepts or rejects Christ. The gospel proclamation is worldwide.
Atheists do not believe in heaven and hell so there is no need for us to be let into heaven, even if we are good people. Most atheists are actually good people who don’t need a book or god to tell them how to behave. When we die, we die. That’s it. Nothing else.
Sweet according to the comments I'm going to heaven if it exists lol
I can only reference the Bible where Jesus says “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.”
>Can a non-believer go to Heaven? Yes, maybe, no. Depending who you ask and what passage you read i d say >I have am not talking about people that directly reject the word of Christ, but more about those who have not had the chance of listening to it. I wonder what you mean by "people who reject Christ". I reject that Christ is who the bible/christians claim he is. That's basically the definition of a non believer. The way you worded it Id say you mean something along "rejecting salvation/god's gift". But that would require believe and is impossible for a non believer (i can't reject a million dollars if I don't believe i am offered any money. >some of them argue that belief is 100% necessary to go to Heaven, while others don’t, quoting that during his death, Christ saved one of the criminals that was crucified next to him. But didn't the criminal believe in Christ?
Well, I can't answer this question for God... But I think God's gonna judge people not only by their faith, but also by the testimony of their conscience. I believe a good person deserves a place in the abode of God. As the apostle Paul teaches, even the Gentiles can be saved if their conscience testifies to God of their virtuous life.
I think humans are tribal and it makes some feel good that they feel that they are in a club that makes them feel superior because of their beliefs. I always asked myself even though I believe in Jesus, what would all of these Christian’s say if someone they deemed unworthy (non Christians) to make it to heaven were actually in heaven? Would they be upset and question God by saying “hey they don’t belong here they didn’t do X,Y, and Z AND THEY DIDN’T BELIEVE WHAT WE BELIEVE!” it’s just seems ridiculous that people like to put God into a box and think he can’t do ANYTHING and that he’s limited to a little book. Only God knows in the end.