Can People of Other Faiths Be Saved?

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Helen:
Larry, you are depending on intellectual understanding as a condition for salvation. I'm glad God doesn't, for then none of us would be saved!

God said intellectual understanding was necessary for salvation.

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

There is a content of saving faith that must be intellectually believed. The whole point of Rom 10:14-17 is that people must hear to be saved, and must have a preacher, and that preacher must be sent, becuase faith comes from hearing adn hearing by the word of Christ. To deny that there is an intellectual component to salvation is incomprehensible.

There is your first biblical evidence. Notice that although the day pours forth speech, the NIGHT DISPLAYS KNOWLEDGE.

Knowledge about what? Not about Christ. IT is knowledge about the "eternal power and divine nature of God, his invisible attributes."

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

So HOW do the stars demonstrate knowledge of this?

They don't, according to Scripture.

In Genesis 15:5, Abraham is told by God to go out and 'tell' the stars. The Hebrew verb there means to name them.

Incorrect. Gen 15:5 is about the number of Abraham's descendants and the Hebrew word there is SPR which means to count. There is nothing there that I can find about "telling" the stars, or "naming" them. That is foreign to the word SPR and to the context.

Everything else in that paragraph becomes moot since your foundation was faulty.

Paul deals with this incident in Galatians 3:16 where he says this incident refers to Abram's SEED in the singular and not in the plural. In other words this episode between God and Abram had nothing to do with Abram's multitude of descendants, but with the fact that the Messiah would come from his line.

Again, simply incorrect. Paul focused on one point. To say that Genesis has nothing to do with "multitude" is to ignore what the text says. Read the verse, particularly the last part.

Genesis 15:5 And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." That clearly has absolutely nothing to do with naming.

Because the name of every star in each language has the same meaning.

Some stars are numbers, not names.

Your whole "gospel in the stars" has no theological and biblical basis. Stick with Scripture.

And when the stars are 'told', starting with the Virgo constellation, the story and character of the Messiah to come emerges. Satan has been allowed to pervert the zodiac into astrology since Christ, but "in the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways." (Hebrews 1:1)

If you go back to Genesis 1:14, you will find that the lights and stars in the heavens are not just for seasons and days and years, but also for signs (the NIV corrupts the translation at this point, but it is clearer in the King James).

The NIV communicates the point very clearly. The only message in the stars is "day, night, seasons, days, and years."

In other words, there is excellent biblical evidence that every man on earth has had access to knowledge of the Messiah, on either side of the Cross.

Actually, there is no biblical evidence. What you have suggested has no theological basis. You were incorrect on the meaning of Gen 15:5, both the word SPR and the meaning of the text. You were incorrect on Gen 1:14 about the usefulness of the heavenly bodies. You were incorrect about the heavens containing propositional revelation that reveals Christ.

Larry, you may not like anecdotes, but the reports from missionaries do show that God has indeed loved the whole world -- every person ever conceived.

I like anecdotes. But they are not valuable for theology. They are experiential and fallible. And I don't need a missionary to tell me that God has loveed the whole word--every person ever conceived. The Bible tells me that through the infallible revelation from God.

Each person has been given enough to put their trust in God and in His promise of salvation.

This has not yet been shown biblically. And that is the key point.

I have been accused of promoting astrology by presenting evidence for the gospel in the stars. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Since Christ we have revelation through HIM and nothing else.

So the gospel in the stars is no longer there? If "we have revelation through Christ and nothing else," then the "gospel in the stars" either wasn't there or is now gone. You can't have it both ways.

Do you know who one of his students was, historically? Zoroaster.

I think you might be reaching here a bit far, and for no good reason. If Daniel saw Christ in the stars, he certainly said nothing about it. There is no indication of any such thing in Daniel. In fact, all of Daniel's revelation had nothing to do with stars. Your whole line of reasoning has no basis in theology becuase it has no basis in Scripture.

Theology is too important for this kind of treatment. God gave us Scripture which is God breathed and contains everything we need to know. We need not reach for the "gospel in teh stars" because God says nothing about it. We need not look to extra-biblical information for theology. God gave us Scripture and that is enough. Christianity and OT Judaism before that has always been a text based religion, not a star based religion. God did not give us the stars to tell us about him. He gave us Scripture and expects us to use that to find him.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Helen:

Because the name of every star in each language has the same meaning. And when the stars are 'told', starting with the Virgo constellation, the story and character of the Messiah to come emerges. Satan has been allowed to pervert the zodiac into astrology since Christ, but "in the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways." (Hebrews 1:1)

One of those ways was in the heavens. If you go back to Genesis 1:14, you will find that the lights and stars in the heavens are not just for seasons and days and years, but also for signs (the NIV corrupts the translation at this point, but it is clearer in the King James).

..But if you want evidence that the study of the stars, or astronomy, was also involved with ancient astrology, take a look at the book of Daniel. He was the head astroloGER under four different kings while the Israelites were in exile.

General revelation does not provide the gospel. First of all, it is not true that the "name of the stars" is the same in every language. The contstellations we know as Virgo, Leo, etc. are not known this way in Native American astrology, Chinese astrology, and other.

I respond to the Daniel issue on my site in the FAQ pages. The signs in Gen have nothing to do with zodiac signs (also on FAQ page below).

The gospel in the stars theory originally stated that God gave Adam the names of the zodiac and that this was lost. Problem is there is nothing in the Bible to support this. There are many refutations of the gospel in the stars, including my own. I don't want to sidetrack this issue but as a former astrologer, I'm asked this all the time and have had to research it.

http://cana.userworld.com/cana_faqs.html

Refutations of Gospel in the Stars:
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/astrol.htm

http://www.letusreason.org/current4%20.htm

 

[Marcia]

So far, 5 have voted "yes," 38 have voted "no," and 5 have voted "unsure."

I am not sure if the "yes" and "unsure" votes are because people are thinking of the OT. I may do this again in a few months and more specifically state the question something like this:

Since 100 AD (just to be on the safe side), can a mentally competent adult (so we leave babies and ment. incompetent out of it) who is of a non-Christian faith be saved apart from hearing/knowing the gospel?

That's what I'm trying to ask here.

If you want to discuss this specific question even if you voted or commented under another understanding of the question, please go for it.

 

[blackbird]

Originally posted by Marcia:
[QB] Since 100 AD (just to be on the safe side), can a mentally competent adult (so we leave babies and ment. incompetent out of it) who is of a non-Christian faith be saved apart from hearing/knowing the gospel?

That's what I'm trying to ask here.

QUOTE]

The Bible overwelming gives a big ole "NO!" answere---when Jesus said, "I am the way, truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by Me"----that statement is an truth that has always existed since the eons of eternity past---it existed in Jesus' day--it exists in our day--it will continue to exist into the eons of eternity future!!

As many of you have surely heard Dr. Adrian Rogers say it---and I'll say it here in his behalf

"If there were any other way to be saved---then God's trip to Calvary was the blunder of the ages!"

And I know Dr. Rogers is right--because I agree with him!!!

 

[Paul33]

And the answer is "No."

No one can be saved without hearing the gospel message. Pastor Larry has already referenced this point with Scripture.

Now God himself may have to intervene in the life of a person so that he may hear the gospel, but according to Scripture, it must happen.

 

[Helen]

Larry, finish what you started in Romans 10:

But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:

"Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world."

This is a direct quote from Psalm 19 and verifies that the stars themselves have presented the Gospel. This is EXACTLY what Paul is referring to in the previous verses, which you quoted.

And again, when Paul is discussing Genesis 15, he is explaining that the noun is 'seed' not 'seeds'. The reference was to ONE who would come from Abraham -- and that ONE He could identify by telling the names of the stars, as he was asked to do.

All righteousness is in Christ. There were two other times Abraham was told he would have many descendents, but this conversation with God was not one of them, as Paul points out.

Marcia, the story is still there in the names of the stars. Look down at the bottom of the 'zodiac' link that I gave and you will see where Malcolm Bowden has pointed out the names of the stars as they existed in so many languages, and still do today.

Larry, the idea that some stars have numbers is mankind's doing, not God's doing. He NAMED the stars. Please don't attempt to sidestep what the Bible clearly says.

Nor does God do anything without purpose. If you look at the names of the stars, you will see some of that purpose. Here is some, cut and pasted, from the Bowden section of the article:

1. VIRGO

This is the first constellation of the circuit which the Greeks wrongly renamed Ceres. A virgin (Is. 7:14) holding a branch (Jer. 23:5-6) and an ear of corn. Corn = seed (Latin Spica, the modern name of this bright star. Old name was Arabic Al Zimach seed). Star Zavijaveh means "gloriously beautiful" (Is. 4:2).

(A) Coma. Woman with a child on her lap - Name means Desire of all nations"
Albumazer, an Arabic astronomer of the 8th century, said that the Persians, Chaldeans and Egyptians said this was a young woman (Persian = virgin) on a throne nourishing an infant boy, having a Hebrew name Ihesu which in Greek is called Christos. Shakespeare referred to this as "the good boy in Virgo's lap" (Titus Andronicus Act 4 Sc. 5).
Original Egyptian name Shes-nu = the desired son. Renamed by the Egyptians as Coma Berenice = The hair or wig of Berenice.
The possible connection of this decan with the Star of Bethlehem will be discussed at the end of this section.

(B) Centaur. Half man - half horse. Said to indicate the two natures of Christ (?). Hebrew name is Beza or Al Beze (Arabic) = the despised (Is. 53:3)

(C) Bootes. A man with a spear and sickle (Rev. 14:15-16). Name The Coming One (Ps. 96:13). Arcturus, the name of the bright star in the left knee= the keeper (of those) going up on the heights. Star Nekkar the pierced (Zec. 12:10).

2. LIBRA

Latin = Libra (scales). A pair of scales (Heb. Mozanaim). Arabic - Al Zubena (= purchase or redemption).
Star names; - lower scale - Zuben al Genubi - Arabic (the price which is deficient) (Ps. 62:9) - upper scale - Zuben al Chemali - Arabic (the price that covers). Alternative name - al Gubi heaped up (the value of the redemption). Zuben al Akrab - The price of the conflict.

(A) Crux = the cross

(B) Lupus or Victima (Beast slain or victim)

(C) Corona = A crown

3. SCORPIO A Scorpion.

Cqptic = Isidis (the attack of the enemy)

(A) and (B) Ophiuchus and Serpens. The "strong man" Ophiuchus (serpent-holder) wrestles with the serpent who is reaching for the crown.
The scorpion is stinging the heel of Ophiuchus, who is treading on the
scorpion (Gen. 3:15). In his heel is the star Antares (= wounding).

(C) Hercules - the mighty vanquisher. Foot is placed on the coiled dragons neck. Star Ras al Gethi = the head of him who bruises (Gen. 3:15).

4. SAGITTARIUS - The Archer

Same meaning in several languages (Rev. 6:2). Star Naim = The gracious one.

(A) Lyra - The harp. The name indicates the praise of God. Brightest star is Vega = He shall be exalted. (Ps. 2 1:13)

(B) Ara - the Altar. The burning fire prepared for His enemies.

(C) Draco - The Dragon. The name comes from the Greek = Trodden on (Ps. 91:13). Brightest star Thuban = The subtle. Names of other stars all refer to similar aspects of the dragon.

5. CAPRICORNUS - The Sea Goat

Ancient pictures are half goat, half fish; i.e. the sacrifice and those who it is sacrificed for (Christians use of the fish as a symbol). Second brightest star Deneb al Gedi = the sacrifice cometh. Others have similar meanings.

(A) Sagitta = The Arrow that pierces (Ps. 38:2).

(B) Aquila = Eagle. This has been wounded by the arrow. Names of stars are "wounding piercing" etc.

(C) Delphinus - The Dolphin. The one who rises.

6. AQUARIUS= The Water Bearer (Is. 44:3)

(A) Piscis Australis = The Southern Fish. Star Fom al Haut = the mouth of the fish

(B) Pegasus = The Winged Horse

(C) Cygnus = The Swan. Brightest star Deneb = The Judge or Adige = flying swiftly.

7. PISCES = The Fish.

Star names indicate "the fish (multitudes) of those who will follow"- i.e. The Church (Ps. 115:14).

(A)The Band - (that unites the two fish) (Hos. 11:4)

(B) Andromeda - The Chained Woman (who will be delivered).

(C) Cepheus - The Crowned King.

8. Aries - The Ram or Lamb (John 1:29)

Brightest star El Nath = wounded, slain; (others similar).

(A) Cassiopeia - The Beautiful Enthroned Woman. The captive woman now delivered. Brightest star Schedir (Hebrew) = freed. 2nd star Caph = The Branch (of victory). (Is. 54:1-8, 62:3-5).

(B) Cetus - the sea monster. The enemy bound.

(C) Perseus - The Breaker. Hebrew = Peretz. Greek = Perses (Micah 2:13). Winged feet = coming swiftly. Head he carries wrongly called Medusa by Greeks; Hebrew Rosh Satan = Head of the Adversary.

9. Taurus - The Bull

The Pleiades = The congregation of the judge.

(A) Orion - The coming Prince. Hebrew Oarion = light. He holds a club and the head of "the roaring lion" (1 Pet. 5:8). Betelgeuz = The coming of the branch. Rigol = the foot that crushes. Al Nitak = the wounded one.

(B) Eridanus - The River of the Judge. Star names refer to "flowing" etc.
(Dan. 7:10; Nahum 1:8).

(C) Auriga - The Shepherd (Is. 40:10-11). Hebrew root = shepherd. Star
p Capella (Latin) = she goat.

10. Gemini - The Twins

There is some confusion of the pictures for this constellation in the different languages, but they generally refer to two people. Probably referring to the two natures of Christ and his eventual victory.

(A) Lepus - The Hare (the enemy); trodden under Orion's foot. Star names refer to "the deceiver" etc.

(B) Canis Major (The Dog) or Sirius (The Prince). Sirius is the brightest of all stars. (Is. 9:6).

(C) Canis Minor - The Second Dog. Star Procyon Redeemer.

11. Cancer - The Crab

There are a variety of pictures for this constellation. The meaning is uncertain.

(A) Ursa Minor - The Little Bear. No bears found in any ancient Zodiacs. Confusion may be from Hebrew Dohver Sheepfold, Dovh Bear.

(B) Ursa Major - The Great Bear. Possibly "Sheepfold" as Ursa Minor as Al Naish "assembled together"; Dubhe = "Herd of animals or a flock" etc. Many stars similarly named.

(C) Argo - The Ship. Became part of Greek Argonaut story. Meaning is the "Return of the travellers".

12. Leo - The Lion

The Lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5). Hebrew name means "Lion hunting down its prey". Name in other languages similar. Denebola Judge who cometh.

(A) Hydra - The Serpent. Hydra means "He is abhorred". Star names similar.

(B) Crater - The Cup. The pouring out of wrath on the wicked (Ps. 75:8).

(C) Corvus - The Raven. Birds of prey devouring the Serpent.

Truly, "Their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world'." Mankind is left with no excuses.

Larry, I'm sorry you don't like history, but it is simple recorded history that Zoroaster was a student in the court at the time of Daniel. This gives us the explanation for what the Magoi were looking for and why and why they reacted the way they did. They knew the timing. They knew what to expect, and they responded in faith as a body.

That's a lot more than can be said for many professing Christians today.

 

[Marcia]

Much of the info that GIS is based on is erroneous. I heartily disagree, Helen.

But I do not want the GIS issue to become the topic of this thread. Please start another thread on it if you all want to discuss this.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Helen:
Larry, finish what you started in Romans 10:

But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:

"Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world."

This is a direct quote from Psalm 19 and verifies that the stars themselves have presented the Gospel. This is EXACTLY what Paul is referring to in the previous verses, which you quoted.

Helen, read the whole chapter. Vv. 8-10 are a direct and clear refutation of your claim. Paul wasn't talking about the gospel in the stars. He was talking about "the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has reaised him from the dead, you shall be saved." That is the message preached, not the stars. If the "gospel in the stars" is sufficient, then vv. 14-17 make absolutely no sense. They will hear without a preacher, so a preacher does not need to be sent, and faith can come without hearing the word of Christ. If you read all of vv. 18 to the end, you see a very different picture than what you are presenting.

But Psalm 19 probably tells us that there are no words, their voice is not heard. (The Hebrew is not explicit.) In other words, there is no propositional revelation to be believed. It certainly makes no claim to speak anythign about Christ.

And again, when Paul is discussing Genesis 15, he is explaining that the noun is 'seed' not 'seeds'. The reference was to ONE who would come from Abraham -- and that ONE He could identify by telling the names of the stars, as he was asked to do.

Gen 15 says no such thing. Read it. The word is SPR, and it means to count. And the promise is that Abraham's seed would be as great as the number of the stars, if he could count them. It has nothing to do with naming. What lexical source do you have that gives "naming" as a meaning for SPR?

Paul references a specific implication of the promise.

All righteousness is in Christ.

True, but irrelevant for this discussion.

There were two other times Abraham was told he would have many descendents, but this conversation with God was not one of them, as Paul points out.

Then explain why the verse reads as it does? God said to count, and Abraham's seed would be that numerous. Why would you disagree with that?

Larry, the idea that some stars have numbers is mankind's doing, not God's doing. He NAMED the stars. Please don't attempt to sidestep what the Bible clearly says.

I am not sidestepping what God is doing. I was pointing out the fallacy in your argument. The Bible does not tell us what name God gave the stars. You know that.

Nor does God do anything without purpose. If you look at the names of the stars, you will see some of that purpose.

You are right on the first. But why do you think that these are the names that God gave the stars? And why do you think that it isn't the Bible, where God promised to tell us everything we need to know?

Larry, I'm sorry you don't like history,

Helen, please don't make stuff up. It is incorrect to say I don't like history. You have no basis for it, Helen. It pains me to see you say something like this. Good conversation cannot continue when this type of stuff is done.

but it is simple recorded history that Zoroaster was a student in the court at the time of Daniel.

That may or may not be true. Neither ISBE, nor ZPEV reference it. No major commentary that I know of talks about it. And it is irrelevant anyway. But my point was not about him being a student in the court. My point was that your whole line of reasoning was reaching.

This gives us the explanation for what the Magoi were looking for and why and why they reacted the way they did. They knew the timing. They knew what to expect, and they responded in faith as a body.

Maybe ... maybe not. We are simply not told that in Scripture.

That's a lot more than can be said for many professing Christians today.

This is certainly true, but again, irrelevant.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
What do you think Acts 4:12 means?

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved."

Do you think this verse is pointing out a distinction between now and before Christ? For instance, does the "we" just refer to those who lived after God's revelation in the person of Jesus? I think this verse is timeless in its application. "Neither is there salvation in any other" -- not before Christ, not after him. All are saved by Christ, even those in the OT who didn't know the name of Jesus and yet trusted in God as he was revealed to them, and perhaps also those afterward who were in a similar position.

Originally posted by Marcia:
I assumed too much, I guess -- I thought people would understand that I was talking about since the time of Christ.

The time before Christ also sheds light on how God deals with humanity.

 

[Fred the Baptist]

Originally posted by Watchman:
Man, I would hope that, here on the Baptist Board, that NO one would vote yes, or even, not sure.

With all due respect and love, I would hope that there is room here for Universalism. There appears to be room for Calvinism. There should also be room for Universalism. There have been Primitive Baptist Churches with Universalism as a part of their articles of faith. Not sure if any of those churches are still around, but there may very well be some individual Baptists who hold to that belief. I'm not one of them but I will keep an open mind in this area.

 

[Marcia]

People in the OT who were considered "saved" believed in the one true God. Many OT passages declare that God is the Savior.

What about a Buddhist or Hindu who never hears the gospel? A buddhist believes in no god and Hindus worship false gods.

I would really like someone who thinks that people outside of Christ today explain why they believe this. What about my question in the previous paragraph?

 

[JGrubbs]

Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

If someone doesn't repent of their sin and make Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior they can not be saved, regardless of how religious they may be or if they believe in God the Creator. This applys to people of all faiths, including those who fill the churches every Sunday morning.

 

[Helen]

Marcia, you may heartily or any other way disagree, but the facts are the facts and the names are the names and the research done by Bowden and others is accurate.

And while you may not want Gospel in the Stars to be part of this thread (and I deliberately avoided it for some time), the fact is that God named the stars and He does not do anything without purpose. The Bible states that purpose -- they declare the glory of God. Hebrews says the Glory of God is Christ. The star names declare Christ. It is not a matter of astrology, but a matter of what God Himself did.

Larry, Paul, I will go back to Romans 10, earlier, and mention in verse 11 where Paul quotes from Isaiah (pre Christ...), "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

Who was that "Him" to Isaiah? The fulfilled Promise, for even Job says, "I know my Redeemer lives." And he was not Jewish!

Your Calvinism is blinding you to what the Bible is saying, I think.

I have never said the Gospel in the Stars was sufficient. That is a word you put in my mouth and I did not say that. I did say that the testimony is written in the stars via the names God gave them. It is enough to tell men what to expect from the Messiah and what would happen. It is not enough to know all about it. That is one reason we see, after the chapter on the faithful in the ancient times in Hebrews 11, we read, "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect."

They had to wait. Nevertheless, they were saved because of faith in the little they knew. But the extent of their knowledge was not what saved them. Their faith was, just like us.

Next, regardless of what you think Psalm 19 MIGHT be saying, Paul uses it as a witness universal in Romans 10. I presume he knew what he was talking about.

The King James, in Genesis 15:5 says the Lord tells Abram "Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be."

First of all, Paul states explicitely that what was being referred to here was Christ, and since all righteousness is in Christ (you missed my connection here), that was the reason Abram's faith at this point was credited to him as righteousness.

Secondly, Paul makes a point of saying that this passage is NOT a reference to many descendents, which is what you claimed above, but to ONE, that is, Christ. Again, I assume Paul knew what he was talking about.

Third, the verb the KJV translates as 'tell' is caphar, a primary root meaning not only to tally, but to recount, or enumerate, or even celebrate! It is not a verb used specifically for counting, but rather one which indicates that there is something to be noticed in the counting, or telling of the items listed.

On to your next point, the Bible does not have to tell us the names God gave the stars. The fact is that 1) He named them and 2) their names translate as the same in every ancient language we are aware of. That is pretty strong evidence regarding their names, especially when, as Bowden and many others have pointed out, those names all point to the Messiah.

You said that God told us everything we need to know in the Bible. No, He didn't. He did not tell you not to touch a hot stove or to stop at a red light. The Bible does tell us what we need to know about salvation. But that does not exclude the witness of creation. Part of the witness of creation is the stars.

I said you don't like history because you are refusing the witness of it. There is a witness in history and it is not wise to ignore it. It is historical fact about star names. It is historical fact about Zoroaster as a student at the time Daniel was head astrologer. It is historical fact that it was not three old men on camels who visited Christ, but the entire upper house of the Persian parliament, the Magoi. It is historical fact that this terrified Herod and Jerusalem because their military contingent was off fighting another war for Caesar. It is historical fact that Zoroastrianism was, for only that brief period in history, the mandated religion of Persia. These all come together to help us understand what the Bible is referring to and give us depth of meaning. History does not replace Bible or disagree with it. But you are refusing evidence from missionaries, from history, and from creation even though they all help show the accuracy of the Bible.

By the way, Matthew says they were Magoi, not magi. It IS in the Bible. The reason why is in history.

To cap it: all adults from all time since Adam have had the opportunity to believe on Christ or reject Him, as the Promised Messiah, as the Promise of God, or as God Himself who promised to rescue the human race. The evidence was in the message handed down from elders to younger members of populations, it was in creation itself in the heavens. There was always a two-fold witness to all men and they could follow the truth they were given (which will always lead to Christ) or suppress it, preferring the Lie.

Men have always had a choice. And so there have been men from all places on earth who have known enough to believe at all times in history. As Peter says, "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Calvinists twist those words to somehow mean "only those God predestined to be saved," but that is not what Peter is saying. That is not what the Bible is saying. God so loved the WORLD, not just a few. And, doing so, made provision for every man to choose God's Promise and Way of Salvation, which Jesus is, or not.

 

[Watchman]

Originally posted by Helen:
Watchman, Blackbird, are you saying that Abraham, David, Daniel, etc. were not saved?

Helen:
There is nothing in the original post that asks about how the Old Testament saints were saved; that is an off-topic issue. It is about those (adults)of other faiths. Can one be saved apart from grace through faith in Jesus Christ today?
That is a yes or no question that you seem to be avoiding.

 

[blackbird]

Originally posted by Watchman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:
Watchman, Blackbird, are you saying that Abraham, David, Daniel, etc. were not saved?

Helen:
There is nothing in the original post that asks about how the Old Testament saints were saved; that is an off-topic issue. It is about those (adults)of other faiths. Can one be saved apart from grace through faith in Jesus Christ today?
That is a yes or no question that you seem to be avoiding. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm praying she's not avoiding the "NO" question---come on, Helen---I'm not ashamed nor afraid to admit that no one is saved outside of "grace through faith" in God's sacrifical blood atonement!!

 

[Watchman]

Originally posted by Fred the Baptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
Man, I would hope that, here on the Baptist Board, that NO one would vote yes, or even, not sure.

With all due respect and love, I would hope that there is room here for Universalism. There appears to be room for Calvinism. There should also be room for Universalism. There have been Primitive Baptist Churches with Universalism as a part of their articles of faith. Not sure if any of those churches are still around, but there may very well be some individual Baptists who hold to that belief. I'm not one of them but I will keep an open mind in this area. </font>[/QUOTE]Respect and love? Granted, those are admirable traits. But to present some other way to be saved, leading people to hell, well, if that isn't the height of hatred, I don't know what is.

 

[Helen]

I think I answered the question in my original response here. There is a difference between a different religion and a different faith. Take for instance a Catholic or a Mormon. Their religions are heretical, but there are a number of them who have put their entire trust in Jesus Christ -- the Jesus of the Bible -- anyway. They may be deceived in a lot of areas, but they are clinging, in their possible confusion, to the one thing they know is for real: Jesus. Their FAITH is the same as ours, although their religion is different. Are these people saved? Yes, I think they are. They teachers will not be, however!

If a person is of another FAITH, then no, there is no salvation left for them. But I tried to draw a distinction in my first response here because I know both Mormons and Catholics who trust Jesus even though they are still partakers in their own religious ceremonies and such.

In short, God knows the heart. No one can be saved outside of Christ. The Christ of the Bible, and not another Christ. Nevertheless, there are an awful lot of people with simple, trusting faith, or even a desperate faith, who cling to that very Christ despite being deceived by cults or non-Christian religions in other areas.

As I think about it, though, it seems Christ may have indicated the reverse is also true. There are people who profess to be Christians, who go to our churches, and are the same 'religion' we are, but whose faith is perhaps in themselves or something else other than Christ alone for salvation. Some of these are evidently teachers, for we read in the Sermon on the Mount that, despite them preaching His name and doing even miracles in His name, He will finally say to them, 'Depart from me, I never knew you.'

A person cannot be saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ. However, where that faith is found, and where it is not found, may surprise many of us a great deal when all is said and done.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Helen:

A person cannot be saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ. However, where that faith is found, and where it is not found, may surprise many of us a great deal when all is said and done.

Thanks for your response, Helen.

My question for the survey may have been about "other faiths," but I tried to clarify that in the first post of this thread:

I am really interested in seeing how many here believe that people can be saved without hearing or knowing the gospel, and without knowing about Christ specifically.

This is what I'm trying to get the answer to, especially in terms of today (not the OT times).
Can a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. be saved if they never heard/read the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Thanks to all who have responded so far.

 

[Helen]

Marcia, I don't think there are too many places in the world anymore which have not heard the Gospel.

There is an interesting book out by Rabi Maharaj called "Death of a Guru" where he chronicals his 'death' to Hinduism and birth into Christ. It is evident from the first that the entire culture where he was, was aware of Christianity.

I know there has been a lot of time since the Crucifixion and Resurrection when that cannot have been said, but that is why I have also tried to point out that these people may be in the same position as those from before the Advent of Christ, and yet still have enough knowledge of the truth given to them, one way or another, by God, to be able to choose that truth and trust the Creator God to save them, somehow, some way.

God knows the heart and I trust in that.

 

[Artimaeus]

Believe God. If you believe God, you will believe His Son.

Faith vs. faith