 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 10/2/2004 3:13 AM (GMT -6) |   | From Gay but not funnyquote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by spenlake
I'll go out on a limb, but it seems to me that Cornelius, even though he was devout and "God fearing" and gave alms, etc., wasn't saved. I don't think that he was saved and reconciled to God until Peter came and preached the gospel. Were the sins of Cornelius covered before he heard the message of the gospel, even while he wasn't a Jew and hadn't received the Holy Spirit. I don't think so. I welcome your disagreement. If you disagree I would love to see your scriptural support because I have wrestled to understand this one. Maybe it should be on a different thread but I think that it is applicable here. I think that the passages below indicate that God's response to Cornelius' God fearing heart and alms-giving was to send Peter so that he could hear the gospel. This is the object of God and the only source of salvation. Until the message of good news came, was he saved? I maintain that he wasn't, just externally good, just chosen to hear the gospel and believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spen,
I like the Cornelius story, but you might be getting a little off topic here. Anyways to answer your question, I think Cornelius was doing his best considering his limited knowledge of God. I think God judges all men according to their limited knowledge of Him and to the degree of ones ignorance. I think that a "gay" person’s perspectives of sin according to religious laws are limited by their knowledge of God. If Cornelius was not saved, it was not because of his breaking Jewish laws but by his rejecting God. Cornelius was not "confronted" about any laws he was breaking, he was confronted about the truth of God revealed in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. God spoke to Peter about such issues: Acts 10:15 (NRSV) The voice said to him again, a second time, "What God has made clean, you must not call profane."
My point to feelinahole was just that, were does a person get off confronting non-believers about laws that only believers our bound by. I’m all for confronting gays (or anyone else) about their knowledge of God and pray that their God giving conscience and the Holy Spirit will convict them of this truth. But about laws that they are not bound by, hmmm.. did John the Baptist call for pagans to repent? I don’t think so. Instead of rejecting God, they will be rejecting you the messenger. Gandhi was known to be absolutely fascinated by Jesus, but he turned away after meeting Christians. I think some times God is up there saying: hey! Please get of my side. You wrote to Leila on another thread that the gospel can be offensive, I somewhat disagree with that statement. What I often find offense is not the gospel, but the demeanor of many Christians in their delivery of the gospel message. Would feelinhole suggest Leila confront her father with his sins against her God like he suggest we do with non-believing gays?
I know there are two schools of thought about the methodology of witnessing to non-believers. I know it is a common practice for street preachers to be confrontational, it attracts a larger crowd. But I don’t know how effective it is in converting non-believers, granted maybe some backsliders are helped. I think it comes down to the order of trusting and repenting, do we trust or do we repent first? I have wrestled with this and have concluded we need to have some measure of trust in God first. I think our human pride gets in the way of true repentance until we can put our trust in God. I don’t see how one can partake in the sacraments of Christianity if they are not a Christian or how anyone would be bound by the laws of Christianity if they are not a Christian. Like I said, did John the Baptist demand pagans to repent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by - sparknheart on 09/30/2004 11:31:39 PM
Sparky,
This issue has been bugging me for a while. There seem to be ways that God works that He decides to keep "hidden" and doesn't explain too well in the scriptures except to give us a little glimpse. For other questions it seems that the Bible is intentionally silent. I don't know "why" but I can speculate that perhaps God intends to keep us silent in order to keep the focus on the gospel and what He has revealed - the clear commands that He has given to us. As an inflamatory example I could use the question, "Are babies 'saved' or are they condemned to hell if they die before they are old enough to have faith?" Neither option seems to be something that I could deal with very well. If we beleived that babies were condemned to hell if they died, I don't know how I could bear it. If we believed that babies would be given eternal life if they died, there would certainly be those who would kill their children to make certain that they would not fall away and ensure that they went to heaven. As it is, I don't think that scriptures are explicitly clear what happens and I am forced to trust that a God who loved us so much that He demonstrated His love in sending His own Son to die for our sins will take care of this issue in the best way. I then can continue to preach and tach the gospel to children as they are able to understand because this is what He has clearly revealed to me.
If I look at the case for salvation of the Gentiles in the OT I find something similar. There seem to be "glimpses" of something of God that is broader than the "Jewish salvation defined in circumcision and in the ceremonial law" that was put into effect with the covenant to Abraham. When I re-read the narrative about Naaman after posting Cornelius it raised questions. Naaman wasn't recorded as being circumcised. He took dirt from Israel to make burnt offerings on which at that time was only the job of the priest in the temple (think of the wrath of God against Uzziah and Jeroboam that broke this law). Yet it seems to me, even if it isn't explicitly stated that Naaman was "saved." This salvation would surely and ultimately depend upon the work of Christ that was hidden at that time but it seems outside the covenants in effect during the life of Naaman. There is a similar glimpse regarding Nineveh. We know that the people repented and physical judgment didn't come upon their city. Could it be that some actually repented further and believed God and it was credited them as righteousness in such a way as to be "saved?" It doesn't really say explicitly. We seem to be left uncertain. The work and message of Jesus as the Christ and His sacrificial death was hidden from all in the OT, Jew and Gentile. All those who looked forward to salvation in faith were looking to something "unknown" and unrevealed.
This brings me to Cornelius. I am not certain of his state before Peter came. His position relative to eternal life isn't explicitly clear to me in the narrative. To me this is one of those "hidden" things. He is the prototypical Gentile that we find at the cusp of transition from Old to New Covenant. What we find explictly revealed is God with a supernatural angel sent to a Gentile and with a supernatural vision sent to His chosen apostle executes and reveals His will for all Gentiles and believers NOW. Peter went and preached the gospel and God "proved" that His will was for "unjewish" Gentiles to be saved outside of the ceremonial laws by sending His Spirit upon them through the Gospel message. This perhaps strengthens the "hidden" relative to the status of Cornelius before the preaching of the Gospel, but that doesn't concern me. What is made clear is that I (and all other Christians) are called to preach the gospel. The hidden aspects I can leave with God and God will judge men who are in this "hidden" in His way as suits Him.
I also know that if Cornelius had not listened and repented after he heard the gospel, his position would not have been hidden any longer. The preaching of the gospel exposes and forces the issue into the open. One cannot be "saved" and be an enemy of the gospel at the same time. (One can be an enemy of the false gospel, a pretend one, that isn't the gospel) It is for us to understand and speak the gospel in as clear and pure a message as we can.
Regarding John the Baptist, "did John the Baptist call for pagans to repent? I don’t think so." What about this passage in Luke 3, quote:
"the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin...Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, “And what about us, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.”
I always thought that this was Gentile Roman soldiers.
I believe that God will judge the entire world by His laws and these laws are consistent with the 10 commandments delivered on Sinai. It is because we all stand condemned because we do not keep these laws in our hearts that we will be judged. The 10th commandment "not to covet" does not speak to a specific action but a desire and "coveting" once and breaking this commandment is enough to cast you into hell for eternity except we escape the wrath of God through faith in Christ. Understanding our need by understanding the law is not bad but necessary. This faith in Christ was "hidden" in the Old Testament but now it is revealed. Can there still be those who have faith in Christ but it continues to be "hidden?" I don't know. It isn't clear to me and ultimately will be between them and God. What is clear is that God's salvation and the complete revelation of His plan for salvation has been revealed in Christ, a clear and faithful message from God delivered to us by a man so that we could hear and believe. This is what we know and can be certain of.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/6/2004 5:45 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
There seem to be ways that God works that He decides to keep "hidden" and doesn't explain too well in the scriptures except to give us a little glimpse. For other questions it seems that the Bible is intentionally silent. I don't know "why" but I can speculate that perhaps God intends to keep us silent in order to keep the focus on the gospel and what He has revealed - the clear commands that He has given to us. As an inflamatory example I could use the question, "Are babies 'saved' or are they condemned to hell if they die before they are old enough to have faith?" Neither option seems to be something that I could deal with very well. If we beleived that babies were condemned to hell if they died, I don't know how I could bear it. If we believed that babies would be given eternal life if they died, there would certainly be those who would kill their children to make certain that they would not fall away and ensure that they went to heaven.
The Spiritual warfare Theodicy is faced with an eschatology dilemma if babies can bypass this test of life, this probation period and go straight to heaven. Infants might be able to achieve sanctifying grace before their particular judgment, though how this might happen we cannot say with any certitude. Some theologians speculate that the infants are given an opportunity not unlike those granted to the angels, before their fall, to accept or reject God. What other options are there, babies being reincarnated? | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/6/2004 6:15 PM (GMT -6) | | To my understanding, based on Scripture and Reason, sin (which "is lawlessness," according to 1 John 3:4) is what merits eternal damnation, not merely being human. Babies, being absolutely unable to even KNOW the law, much less violate it, INHERIT (but do not MERIT) the kingdom of heaven. Concerning little children, Jesus said, "of such is the kingdom of heaven." Paul said "by the law is the knowledge of sin," "I was alive apart from the law once; sin came to life, and I died," and "sin is not imputed where there is no law."
Yeah, they get "a free pass," but WHO really would say this is unjust, or that infants actually deserve HELL?
This is your kid in Hell====> 
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/6/2004 6:25 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Yeah, they get "a free pass," but WHO really would say this is unjust, or that infants actually deserve HELL?
Then are you conferring with Spen, would it be a great act of sacrificial love to be condemned to hell for killing our babies to insure their place in heaven? Mind you, I don't hold such a position.
My question is how do you square this “free pass” with the evil in the world. Why not just give everybody a “free pass” and bypass this probation period?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/6/2004 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | My question is how do you square this “free pass” with the rest of us that are left at war with the evil in this world. Why not just give everybody a “free pass” and bypass this probation period?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/6/2004 6:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Anyways, The Spiritual Warfare Theodicy has to answer this dilemma.
I'll sleep on it.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 10/7/2004 1:27 AM (GMT -6) | | My 1 1/2 cents:
Sparknheart: If memory serves, Doc acknowledges and discusses your question in SATPOE. One possibility is that, while the TWT requires probationary periods, it does not require that probationary periods for all people must be terminate with physcial death on this planet. (However, if probationary periods [at least for some people] extend beyond this life, we would have absolutely no way of knowing what it looks like.)
Regarding salvation of pagans, here's where I'm at: Whoever is "saved" is "saved" by faith. What faith looks like to us is different for different people. For one, it may be responding appropriately to the verbal message of the Gospel. For another, it may look to us like "works" that are actually (as Spenlake says) "linked to faith". For someone else, it may look like something we would never have thought would constitute "faith". There is no nice, neat, simple formula given to us whereby we can say who is saved and who is not saved (i.e., who has faith and who does not). We are not meant to make judgments about who is saved and who is not. God knows. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/7/2004 6:13 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JET
My 1 1/2 cents:
If memory serves, Doc acknowledges and discusses your question in SATPOE. One possibility is that, while the TWT requires probationary periods, it does not require that probationary periods for all people must be terminate with physcial death on this planet. (However, if probationary periods [at least for some people] extend beyond this life, we would have absolutely no way of knowing what it looks like.)
Hello JET,
Thanks for dropping a few cents into my hat as heaven knows my head can always use a little cents. It's always a joy to read your posts, thanks for your understanding of my question. 
I will dig out my SATPOE and do further research on this topic. In the meantime, it sounds like it might be easier to find God to be a just God, if you believed in the pre-existence of souls or some form of reincarnation. It appears to me that there has to be some other mode for an additional probationary period (at least for some people, like babies) after physical death here in this realm.
quote:
Regarding salvation of pagans, here's where I'm at: Whoever is "saved" is "saved" by faith. What faith looks like to us is different for different people. For one, it may be responding appropriately to the verbal message of the Gospel. For another, it may look to us like "works" that are actually (as Spenlake says) "linked to faith". For someone else, it may look like something we would never have thought would constitute "faith". There is no nice, neat, simple formula given to us whereby we can say who is saved and who is not saved (i.e., who has faith and who does not). We are not meant to make judgments about who is saved and who is not. God knows.
AMEN | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:12 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|