I suppose we could ask the thief who hung next to Christ?
Which Thief?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can a person be saved apart from access to the Bible or a Church or Religion?
- Thread starter beameup
- Start date
Which Thief?
Alive in Christ
New Member
Mandym...
Completely false.
It is nothing more then some scripture heeding evangelicals seeing scriptural truth differently than other scripture heeding evangelical christians see it.
Its actually a very healthy thing.
Completely false.
It is nothing more then some scripture heeding evangelicals seeing scriptural truth differently than other scripture heeding evangelical christians see it.
Its actually a very healthy thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Agreed!
I don't agree with that - sorry! I wonder where you get the idea that anyone could gain access to heaven by living up to one of the plethora of "moral codes" there are in the world? But it's likely that I have misunderstood you, because I agree with the rest of your post.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Not to Mandym and others of the same stripe. If you disagree with them on this and many other things, you are apostate and going to hell.
I would be interested to hear at what point of differing beliefs YOU would consider someone apostate and going to hell.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
I would think that those who believe that people who don't agree with them are apostate and going to hell, are themselves apostate and going to hell.
Said somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I believe "love for the brethren" is a determinant for who has the fruits of the spirit, and thus the Spirit himself.
I haven't read through this thread so I assume someone has said this, but there are places on Earth where a person's faith is all they have. They were saved by the words of another. Churches of any kind and Bibles are outlawed. Sounds like a great reason to memorize as much of the Bible as possible.
Of course I could be totally missing the point and you mean people such as Amazon tribesmen who have never been exposed to any kind of Christianity.
Of course I could be totally missing the point and you mean people such as Amazon tribesmen who have never been exposed to any kind of Christianity.
So the whole new testament and message of the Gospel is completely meaningless? The message is not necessary? Countless missionaries, inlcuding Paul have wasted their lives?
Telling someone the truth is not a lack of love.
No. I think it is a picture of the sudden judgment of God. And Noah preached for 120 years and warned of impending destruction.
The same will happen again one day, just not by a flood.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Where, pray tell, are you getting that I said or meant that?!
What I said can be substantiated in many places in the New Testament. Is it really necessary for me to list those places?
Just to review the context of that remark of mine, Tom Butler was affirming that everyone on the planet prior to Christianity went to Hell, other than a certain number of Jews and converts to Judaism.
And I would have been implicitly opposed to that idea, but then the example of Noah occurred to me, in which only a handful of humans were saved. It would lend support I think to what Butler was saying, but I threw it out there anyway.
But Noah is of course invoked repeatedly in the N.T. in prophetic connection to the end times and the redemption of the saved:
(1 Pet 3:20-21) who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
So even here Peter is remarking on the small number saved.
And then in the Gospels,
(Luke 17:26-29) "And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. "
So Jesus also mentions Lot, and in that case as well, only a tiny number of people were saved.
But then Matthew implies something different:
(Mat 24:37-41) "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left.
So in the case of Matthew its almost implying its a 50-50 proposition if you're "saved" or not ( if we can in fact view this statements of Christ as being indicative of more far-reaching principles).
So, is it either a few who or "saved" or rather a few are "raptured" or neither. And there is a question of whether the animals on the ark could be perceived as symbolic of humans. I don't think its far-fetched to at least consider these questions, because it is Christ himself and the epistle writers who bring up Noah symbolically in reference to the church and the end times.
(Luke 13:23-24) And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them, "Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able."
Last edited by a moderator:
Simply that when asked what, in your opinion, might signifiy someone as headed for hell, you did not mention anything about the Gospel, or Jesus Death on the cross, or faith in Christ...only love for other people. You may have simply not mentioned those things to make a point, but if I knew nothing else other than your answer to that question, I might think that.
What about the Ninevites, that repented throughout the entire city at the preaching of Jonah. Did they just spare their own earthly lives and the city, but still went to Hell? They were of course preached to, but they were not preached to about Jesus, nor did they convert to Judaism. All they did was repent of their sins and implore Gods mercy. If this did lead to eternal salvation, then why is it inconceivable that someone on their own, i.e. through the Holy Spirit, but apart from anyone "witnessing" to them, could be convicted of their own sin and reach out to God.
Also, I apologize for jumping to conclusions about what you were saying. I was simply trying to make a point that if it is ONLY love and not Faith in Christ, then there is no reason to share the gospel. I'm not trying to attack you, just debate (this is a debate forum). You are correct that we must guard our tendancies to treat each other without love. I simply think that the NT puts Christ and faith in him at the center, and love flows out from there.
IMO, no. The animals were animals. It is the number of animals that have significance. Two of each vs seven clean animals.
What I want to know is how did they know what seven clean animals were before the Mosaic Law? But maybe that is a question for a different thread.
There are those whose livelihoods are connected to the 'soul winning' economy of 'The Great Commission of the Church to populate heaven'. The perpetuation of the false doctrine of hardline restrictivism is crucial to their livelihoods.
It really is that simple.
...more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband Isa 54:1 Gal 4:27
My opinion. God sent all the animals to the ark. He told Noah to go into the ark 7 days before the flood, during which time the animals came to him. God told him the 7 pairs were to be used for sacrifice (clean). In that way Noah knew which ones were clean. Not because Noah had chosen them, but God did.
It might be this question applies to the OP in this way: they knew the difference between clean and unclean and...it shows that sacrifice for sin was in practice before the law.
Basically, as we read in Hebrews...
Hebrews 1
King James Version (KJV)
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
...God has spoken to man from the beginning. We see in Cain's failure what appears to be disobedience concerning his offering, implying that while not recorded, instruction had been given, as evidenced in Abel's offering.
So the bottom line would be, it seems to me, that what God has spoken...that is what is to be obeyed by man.
And in these last days He has spoken unto us by His Son, and that sets the standard. We can speculate about those in outer reaches, but for those of us and all that have been exposed to God's word and His Son, we are to obey that word and in our efforts seek to comply with the pattern and standard measure of rule provided in His word.
God bless.