Can People of Other Faiths Be Saved?

[TexasSky]

Pamela,

That's an excellent point.

I think I'm in a "stickler for detail mood" because I was focusing on the word "can" .

 

[TexasSky]

Brother James,

When the bible says, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God," it uses the same Greek word as when the bible says that God sends His message of grace to all men.

Therefore, I assume that the idea that people die without having heard the message is actually a myth. I think that somehow, every human being has been given a chance to know Christ.

I don't necessarily understand how that works. Maybe via dreams, maybe via missionaries. I just trust that God means what God says.

 

[PamelaK]

Texas,

Okay.

 

[TexasSky]

One other thought -

I've known Christ for almost 1/2 a century, and I've met people of almost every religion of the world. I've met people from almost every nation of the world.

I have NEVER met anyone who has NOT heard the message of Christ.
I have NEVER met anyone who has met anyone who has Not heard the message of Christ.

I only meet those who reject that message or those who accept it.

Never does anyone over the age of six tell me, "Wow! I never heard about Jesus!"

 

[bapmom]

Someone mentioned earlier that missionaries have stories of Gospel remnants in tribes all over the world. This is significant to me.

I have also studied this, and it is amazing how many of these stories there are. The most remote tribes out there have remnants of God's gospel message in their lore and in their spiritual beliefs.
Remember, this also means that at one point these tribes had the WHOLE gospel, so to say that there were millions before them who had never heard, is probably not realistic in many cases. They let that gospel remnant die out, sometimes to the point where it is very hard to recognize.

However, the people can still respond to that little bit of light that still remains there. If they do respond, than God sends them more light, in the form of missionaries, perhaps dreams, like Texas said, too.

This to me is a huge incentive to get out there and support missionaries or become one ourselves.

 

[Paul33]

I think Helen meant all men (who are saved) are truly atoned for and justified through Christ.

I agree with Helen that the promise of Messiah was known and preached from the fall of Adam forward. In Genesis 4:1, Eve thought she had given birth to the "seed" promised in Genesis 3:15. She said, "I have brought forth a man - the LORD." In Hebrew, et yahweh, is the direct object of the sentence. Eve was wrong about the person (Cain), but not the concept. A woman would indeed bring forth a man - the LORD.

As to stars, I don't have any problem seeing the gospel in the stars if that is what history indicates. If the ancient peoples shared a common definition for the names of the stars, and those names point to Messiah, so be it.

The heavens do declare the glory of God.

On a different topic, I don't understand why Helen resists the idea that Job 38:7 can refer to real stars that sing and real angels that shout for joy. Certainly Job 38:1-9 gives direct witness to the condition of the heavens and earth when they were first founded, before God called for light from the sun (star) to penetrate to the earth's surface.

Direct Scriptural evidence should be accepted even as we accept historical evidence that isn't in the Scriptures.

 

[Paul33]

General revelation gives enough light to every person who has ever lived to believe in a Creator. Failure to trust in God leaves every person without excuse. No one will be able to say that they didn't know about Messiah, and use it as an excuse. They don't know about Messiah because they reject the truth of the Creator God. At that point, they wouldn't believe even if someone rose from the dead to tell them.

However, those who believe in the Creator God will hear the gospel in some way and be saved, IMO.

 

[Fred the Baptist]

First, let me apologize for not seeing the doctrinal statement of the Baptist Board when I joined. I failed to click on "SOF" at the bottom of the page. I did not realize that "the basic doctrinal statement of the Baptist Board" was "The Baptist Faith and Message" of the Southern Baptist Convention. Had I realized that, I would not have become a member. Also, I doubt very seriously that other members of the board who are members of churches in other conventions or associations realize that the doctrine of the Baptist Board is the same as that of the Southern Baptist Convention. This doctrine leaves no room for Calvinism, Arminianism, Universalism, nor many other doctrines held by some Baptists. How could a Primitive Baptist, a Free Will Baptist, or other Baptists who hold similar views participate with you?

If you are going to stick strictly to beliefs held by the Southern Baptist Convention, you really need to state such very clearly on your site so that new members will realize what they are getting into.

I really thought that your statement, "BaptistBoard.com is a free discussion forum for the Baptist community. We believe that open and honest exchange of ideas can be beneficial to all participants." at http://www.baptistboard.com/ was your policy.

You won't have to "withdraw fellowship" or kick me off. I hereby resign.

 

[Helen]

Hebrews tells us that Christ tasted death for ALL. That means NNE HAS TO DIE IN THEIR SINS. But most do. Why? Because they refuse the truth that is available to them and which will lead them to Christ.

Jesus died for us all. He atoned for us all. This is NOT universalism, which claimed every man is saved no matter what. This is saying that the potential was provided for the salvation for every man, but the fact is that most refuse it, thereby consigning themselves to hell.

If Jesus did not make atonement for ALL sin for ALL time, then there are sins left in this universe unatoned for, and that means there are insults to God still in existence. No way. Jesus did it all.

It is we who refuse it. That is why so few are finally saved.

A quick note about the morning stars in Job, to whomever brought it up. They are said to have been 'singing'. Science has found that there ARE harmonics coming from the stars, or at least being produced by them. Another instance where the Bible is thousands of years ahead of science...grin.

 

[Paul33]

Hi Helen,

I brought up the stars singing because you and I have disagreed over the literalness of the passage in Job versus poetry/figurative language.

As to atonement, I believe there are two phases: the atoning sacrifice and the atoning intercession in the holy of holies. Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for "all" sin. His atoning sacrifice is for everyone. But the actual application of the atoning sacrifice doesn't take place until the priest enters the holy of holies. Jesus entered the heavenly realm as priest and intercedes for those who are his. The priest makes atonement for the people. Christ makes atonement for the elect, those who stop rebelling against God and believe the truth.

Yes, there are sins not atoned for because Christ does not intercede on behalf of the rebellious who are storing up wrath until the day of God's wrath (Rom. 2:5). That is not the same thing as saying Christ died only for the elect. Jesus died for everyone's sins. He paid the penalty for every person's sins.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

No. Unless we throw out,"I am the way, the truth, and the life:no man commeth to the Father but by Me.Jn14:6

 

[Helen]

Thank you, Paul, for your explanation. The only problem I would potentially have with it is the word 'elect.' I did a study on that a year or so ago because of its use in apparently supporting Reformed theology and came up with something which surprised me very much: the word 'elect' almost always, in the NT, applies to the Jewish people themselves, or at least to some of them. It is not a matter of who is Christian and who is not. There is an exception where there is a reference to elect angels, but where the elect in the human race is concerned, it seems to be referring to the Hebrews. The study is here:
http://www.setterfield.org/elect.htm

 

[buckster75]

I read this from the other post:

"I have also noticed that it is not real popular now to say that Jesus is the only way"

Yes the preachers will always trend to what is "popular". They call it "mainstream" where the people are allowing their thinking and their wisdom to take them. But the Bible tells that the wisdom of man is foolishness. There is an absolute Truth and His name is Jesus Christ.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[buckster75]

Sorry for the word always in the previous post. Did not mean to imply all preachers all the time. I think there is always a remnant that gets it right.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I just type a long post in response to Helen that didn't get posted for some reason. Rather than retype it all, I will just summarize.

You have falsely charged me with ignoring or not liking history. That is simply false. I would appreciate you refraining from such tactics. I pointed out that two major Bible reference works give no indication of the truth of your statements about Zoroaster. More imporantly, I have pointed out that it is irrelevant. With respect to stories from missionaries, you and I both know that missionaries lie and embellish from time to time. Perhaps they are telling the truth about cultures where the gospel already is. Why could that be? Becuase the gospel has been passed down from generation to generation. There is no reason to suggest it came from the stars or nature. The Bible does not teach. If it did, then you would have demonstrated it by now.

Second, with respect ot Gen 15:5, the word is not "caphar" as you said. It is "saphar," and it means vb. count, Pi. recount, relate -- Qal 1. count things, to learn their number, c. acc.; acc. om.; + l (dat. comm. vel eth.). 2. number = take account of, carefully observe and consider, reckon. Niph. be counted, numbered, usu. c. neg., to indicate multitude, brome 'SyI al{ it is not to be counted, for multitude; positively. Pi. recount, rehearse, declare: 1. recount something (acc.), to (l. pers.), (of rehearsing glorious deeds of 'y); c. acc. +B. loc., elsewhere of rehearsing name or praise of 'y; c. acc. alone (+ B. instr.), all of rehearsing praise of 'y; acc. om., c. l. pers., c. la, pers., c. ynEz>a'B.; c. AmK. (q.v.); c. la, concerning; c. l[; concerning, + l. pers. 2. appar., in weakened sense, talk (c. l concerning). 3. count exactly, accurately. Pu. be recounted, related, rehearsed: (cl. as subj.), + l. concerning; c. B. loc.; abs. (pg 707).

It does not have reference to significance necessarily, and the words of Gen 15:5 make clear that it refers to a large number, not to names, or telling anything. As I poitned out, when Paul uses that reference, he refers to one particular part of the promise for his point. Don't distort that. Paul knew what he was talking about.

Third, there is absolutely no way you can say what "all men since Adam" have had opportunity to do. You cannot prove that nor verify it. However, the Bible makes clear that Pharoah never had that chance, nor did Judas. They were condemned before they were ever born. You twice attempted to make this an issue about Calvinism. The truth of Calvinism not withstanding, this is not a Calvinistic problem. I agree with you about 2 Peter 3:9, although an arminian almost convinced me to take the other position. Simply put, your continued issues with Calvinism play no real role in this discussion.

People in all ages are saved by faith. The content of that faith however was different. It is anachronistic to say that Abraham believed in Christ for salvation. It simply isn't in the Bible.

Helen, you have been wrong about some things, misguided about something, misrepresented some things, and been right about some things. More of the latter and less of the former would be helpful. But above all, don't misrepresent what other people say. That is particularly distasteful.

 

[Helen]

Zoroaster was a student of Daniel. Ref: Dr. Thomas Hyde, writing on the ancient religion of the Persians and quotes from Abul Aragius, an Arab Christian historian 1226-1286, who wrote that Zoroaster, a Persian, was a pupil of Daniel the prophet. Zoroaster wrote in the Zend Avesta about what to expect regarding the Christmas star.

Paul makes a point in Galatians that the episode with Abraham was specifically NOT talking about anyone BUT Christ.

"The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,' meaning many people, but 'and to your seed,' meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. for if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come."
Galatians 3:16-19a

It's a little hard to get anything other than the Christ out of all that as Paul references the event of Genesis 15. So we are left with, what was it that Abraham saw in the stars that told him about the Seed? Just a lot of twinkling? Or the fact that, God having named the stars Himself, those names had some very special significance regarding the coming Messiah?

And if the heavens declare the glory of God, then is that just a twinkling thing? Or is the glory of God fully shown in Christ Himself, as we are told in Hebrews 1?

And I can definitely and with full assurance say that all men since Adam have had an opportunity to choose the truth, who is Christ, or suppress it, thereby calling God's wrath down on themselves, for Peter tells us that He does not want anyone to perish, "but everyone to come to repentance."

If that is what He wants, then, by your theology, either He did not act in accordance with what He wanted in giving each man an opportunity, or He was powerless to do so.

I deny both of those options and affirm that every man since Adam has been loved by God and given the chance to respond to that love in repentance and trust.

Job lived before Abraham. If Job knew his Redeemer lived "and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes -- I and not another", then why not Abraham, who did not live long after?

Agur, writer of Proverbs 30, knew God had a Son:
Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands?
Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and the name of his son?
Tell me if you know!

Isaiah knew the Messiah:

For unto us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing it and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
From Isaiah 9

What do you mean Abraham didn't believe in Christ for salvation? All righteousness is in Christ and God counted Abraham's faith as righteousness.

It's all the way through the Bible.

It's the theme of the Bible.

People have always known God Himself would come and rescue us. They all, since Adam, have had the chance to trust or not trust in that promise.

You may call missionaries liars if you like, but the stories are too many. Are they all, then, liars? And if so, what on earth are we doing supporting them? But again and again the stories come back that some form of the ancient Promise still was there -- something they could 'hang' the Gospel on -- the Gospel that tells them the good news that God had done it, and His Name is Jesus!

Dr. Duane Spencer, in his book "The Gospel in the Stars", writes the following

Several years ago when I was a speaker for the Congress on Prophecy at the Church of the Open Door in Los Angeles, I pointed out that Paul claims in Romans 10:18 that all men have heard the gospel. Then I explained the biblical basis for the apostle's statement much in the same way I am now explaining it to you. After the service was over, a dear saint of God said to me, "Dr. Spencer, I heard this from a missionary fifty years ago. She went up into the back country of Japan one day where no missionary had ever been. She began to tell the story of Redemption. When she had finished an old lady got up all excited and said: 'That's it! That's it! I've read this story in the stars and told my people about the Saviour, but I never knew His name before this!" Then she went on to tell me that the story of Redemption is also built into the picture characters of the oriental alphabets! Isn't that simply fascinating? All men ARE without excuse, for all men HAVE heard the Gospel.
pp 8-9

Now you may call Richardson, Olsen, Spencer, and so many others liars or exaggeraters, Larry, but the fact is that they were there, and you weren't. You are working off of a preconception and they had the experience which contradicts you. In addition, their experiences show that Paul's words are true. All men have heard. Peter's words are true -- God does not want one to perish, but all to come to repentance. John's words are true: God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son. David's words are true: the heavens declare the glory (Christ) of God.

Oh yes, Abraham knew from the stars, and he believed on Christ, and, like all believers, it was credited to him as righteousness, for all righteousness is only in Christ.

 

[Helen]

I forgot about Pharaoh and Judas. Both were exposed to the truth of God. Both knew. Both refused. Just because God knew they would do this does NOT mean they never had a chance to do otherwise. If that were so, then the Bible lies when we are told He is not willing that ONE should perish.

With Pharaoh, we read that the first five times he hardened his own heart. Then, after another time, he again repented and then hardened his own heart again. It was only AFTER this that God finally finished the job for him.

And Judas? Good gravy! He followed Christ for three years! Of course he knew the Gospel! With him, money won out. I sometimes wonder if Jesus was not looking at him directly when He warned that a man cannot serve two masters.

Both Pharaoh and Judas were free to choose to do what they did. Yes, God KNEW ahead of time, but God still did not WANT them to perish, but gave each of them, and each of us, every possible opportunity to repent.

 

[Watchman]

Helen, I now find myself in full agreement with what you just said, but isn't there another forum for this debate?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Zoroaster was a student of Daniel.

For the last time, WHO CARES?? It is comlpetely and totally irrelevant, as I have been saying from the first time you brought it up. Even if you are right, it just doesn't matter. This is bad argumentation. It may be true, it may not be. I have seen no evidence either way. But it is irrelevant. It makes no difference.

Paul makes a point in Galatians that the episode with Abraham was specifically NOT talking about anyone BUT Christ.

Again, we must go back to language and grammar. "Seed" is a collective noun. It can be singular or plural. The Genesis use is universally agreed, so far as I know, to be plural. Your assertion would require that Paul did not know Greek and Hebrew. No one agrees with that. It is easier to see what Paul was saying by looking at his intent. He was looking at a particular part of the promise and focusing on that. He was not saying the promise was wrong. This is a difficult passage to be sure, but the best option is surely not to say that God didn't know what he was talking about in the plain language of Gen 15.5

So we are left with, what was it that Abraham saw in the stars that told him about the Seed?

This is easy, if you read the passage. The issue was about the "number." If you can "count them," so will your descendants be. What else could that mean? It told him his seed would be numerous.

Or the fact that, God having named the stars Himself, those names had some very special significance regarding the coming Messiah?

As I have already pointed out numerous times, you don't know what God named them. You know what man named them. Therefore you cannot claim that God named them anything having to do with the Messiah. You simply don't know that.

And if the heavens declare the glory of God, then is that just a twinkling thing? Or is the glory of God fully shown in Christ Himself, as we are told in Hebrews 1?

Hebrews 1 says nothing about God showing himself in Christ in the stars. God's glory consists of far more than Christ. Romans 1 tells us that the heavens and earth (creation) reveals God's "eternal power and divine nature." That is more than Christ by any definition. You are way too narrow in your attempt to hold your position. You have defined God's glory to narrowly.

And I can definitely and with full assurance say that all men since Adam have had an opportunity to choose the truth, who is Christ, or suppress it, thereby calling God's wrath down on themselves, for Peter tells us that He does not want anyone to perish, "but everyone to come to repentance."

You cannot say this if you are a biblical theologian. You have to go outside the Bible to make this claim. Therefore, we should reject it out of hand.

What do you mean Abraham didn't believe in Christ for salvation?

Just what I said. Was there something confusing in it?

All righteousness is in Christ and God counted Abraham's faith as righteousness.

But the Bible does not tell us that Abraham believed in Christ for salvation. Remember, that was the issue, not whether Abraham's faith was counted for righteousness. You are conflating these things. Don't forget about progressive revelation.

You may call missionaries liars if you like,

I didn't call them all liars. I said some do, and some embellish. I even said that their stories were possibly true. Did you forget to read that far??? And I pointed out why they would be true. None of it has to do with unaided star revelation. Anecdotes do not take the place of God's authority in Scripture. We must judge all things by Scripture, not by missionary stories. In the end, I simply don't know about the truth of their stories, and you must admit you don't either.

Oh yes, Abraham knew from the stars, and he believed on Christ,

Why not support this with Scripture? We all know why ... You can't. If you had one verse of Scripture that supported this, you would have put it out by now. The truth is that you have no support from Scripture.

With Pharaoh, we read that the first five times he hardened his own heart.

No you don't. Read Exodus 4:21. The very first mention of Pharaoh's hard heart is when God says he (God) will do it. The second mention is when God says he (God) will do it (Exod 7:3) The third and fourth mentions are passive (was hardened -- 7:13, 22). Pharaoh is not said to harden his heart until 8:15 and 32. So your statement is biblically incorrect. The "first five times" include three passives and two actives. And before those five times, you have God's promise about what He will do.

Helen, this, like so many other of your assertions are plainly answered in Scripture.

And Judas? Good gravy! He followed Christ for three years! Of course he knew the Gospel!

Knowing the gospel wasn't the point. Go back and read what I said, and don't change the subject. Judas, from the OT years before he was born, was called the son of perdition, whose hand would be lifted up against Christ.

Both Pharaoh and Judas were free to choose to do what they did.

Yes they were.

Yes, God KNEW ahead of time, but God still did not WANT them to perish, but gave each of them, and each of us, every possible opportunity to repent.

Your first part is true; your second part is not. Think of Tyre and Sidon:

Matthew 11:21-22 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 "Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.

Here, Christ says if he had done those works in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented. So if God had really wanted them to repent, why didn't he do those works? And can it really be said that God gave them "every opportunity" if He did not do the very thing that He knew would bring repentance?

You attempt to answer about Pharoah and Judas by saying that they had a chance but God knew they would reject. That makes no sense. Think about it. If God knows someone will do something, they cannot do otherwise. If they could do otherwise, then God's knowledge would be wrong. I have no problem with saying they rejected the truth. They did. All men do, so that they are without excuse. But you made a bad argument that won't stand up.

Helen, once again you are trapped by Scripture. There is certainly room for debate amongst good people about some of these things, but some of the things you are saying are clearly answered in Scripture, and some of them have no scriptural support at all.

The task of theology is to determine what Scripture means, and how it applies to us. We do not need to go outside of Scripture for that. And we shouldn't.

In the end, we are off topic and we won't come to a conclusion because we have a very different view of Scripture. And that's fine ...

 

[Pastor Larry]

BTW, to say that OT people "knew about a redeemer" or "knew about Christ" is not the issue. They did. The question is, Was Christ the content of their saving faith? The answer to that is at best, "we don't know." More likely, it is "No." There is no evidence that anyone believed in Christ for salvation in the way that the Philippian jailer did.

Similarly, it is off base to talk about righteousness being only in Christ. We agree on that.

But with respect to today, which is what this thread is about, no one of "another faith" can be saved. Christ is the only way, and salvation requires conscious faith and repentance for salvation.