Do all roads actually lead to heaven?

This is not about God being limited; it's about what the word of God clearly teaches. It doesn't matter what it means to you or me, or what we think it should be. "Without faith it is impossible to please God," Heb 11.6. Without faith in the true God (whether OT or NT, but Christ was the revelation of God in the NT), one is eternally separated. God is more than able to reach whom he wants with the gospel. He's not "limited" by people not knowing about Him - he can decide how and when the word should go forth, and he uses people to do this.

We're not talking about who calls himself a Christian, but who the Bible calls a Christian. It is one who knows of and trusts in the historical Christ.

You had a lot of words in your post, but you didn't really answer my question. So let's get down to brass tacks: Can a Hindu, for example, without knowing the name of Christ, go to heaven?

 

This is biblically false. And you make an attempt to explain what God himself has not explained. It is human philisophical reasoning that leads to such a conclusion and that drives wedges between God's people. Hindus are not elect. Neither are muslims. You cannot deny Christ and be elect.

This is another gospel. It false and you are a false prophet, teacher or whatever you seem to consider yourself.

 

Good Job!:thumbsup:

 

I hope Marcia doesn't mind me using her as an example, I'm not completely agreeing with pinoybaptist but look at Marcia Bio prior to being a Christian. I have no doubt of her faith or salvation now but there was a time before Christ entered her life. She was still one of the elect, she just hadn't responded to the calling. I realize if she never responded she was not one of the elect but I believe part of what is being said, while she was other things she was still one of the elect.

In this light, a Hindu or Muslim could be one of the elect who just hadn't responded to the call. Another example is Saul prior to the road experience.

 

Read all my posts and get the gist of what I am really saying, man.

My question to the OP was clear. On what basis is one a Christian. Good works ? Good behavior ? Church membership ? Biblical knowledge or expertise ? Religious affiliation ? Birth, political, or credal circumstances ?Is one a Christian because one assents to, and accepts, the biblical principles of how God justified His people, the efficacy of Christ's blood, His deity, His virgin birth, and so on ? Is one a Christian because he walked down the aisle, or raised his hand, and prayed a silly, man made thing called a sinner's prayer ?

The Bible says Christians are accepted in Christ.


Matthew 17:5 says "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.".

Ephesians 1:6 "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."

The Christian, with all his faults, all his wrong theology, all his shortcomings, sins, and imperfection, is a Christian, because he has been made accepted in the beloved.

Colossians 3:3 says "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God".

No one of you on this board, who demand that a Christian be no one else but members of Christendom, can produce one single Scripture that says along with the perfect, finished atoning sacrifice of Christ, knowledge of His person, or of the Scriptures, is necessary for that sacrifice to truly be effective.

Show me where I said this. You said this, not me.

[/quote]

No, it's not.

True.

I trust the blood of Christ is sufficient for my sins. I trust He is true to what He said of Himself "merciful God". I trust He means it when He said that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. I trust Him to save me, according to His good pleasure, and His knowledge that I am but flesh.

I trust that I am one of His own, because I love the brethren, my immediate brethren in my own church family, our brethren in our denominational family, and brethren who name the Name of Christ as belonging to them, too, including Rev. Mitchell who very kindly called me a false prophet, and Marcia who thinks she is going to back me into a corner with brass tacks, and yourself.

I trust that He has quickened me because I abhor sin, and were it within my absolute power, I would not sin, in deed, in word, or in thought, and I trust He has quickened me because I love His word, His Name, and would like nothing more than to see, and hear, Him, and Him only, glorified.

I trust that He has converted me because I have turned away, not of my own power but His, from a wicked life, and from wicked teachings, and from atheism, and from communism, and from taking up arms, and would rather sit at home listening to Spirit-filled preachers, not necessarily my denomination, or discussing His word with Baptists such as yourself.

If I ever forthlightly declare I am saved and heaven bound, it will be to His credit and Him only, and not to any knowledge I may have of Scriptures, or of doctrine, or any action or prayer I have done.

If, however, I die and wake up in hell, then He knows that while on earth I have declared and accepted the fact that He alone is sovereign, and Holy, and I am finite, and unholy, and if He sees it fit to refuse me, then to Him be glory forever and ever.

Who am I to thrust myself upon Him ?

Fatalism is not caring if you live or die, since all will die, anyway.

I will not step out into the pathway of cars carelessly, nor not seek medical attention if necessary and affordable, on the basis that everybody dies, anyway. That is fatalism.

 

LeBuick has pointed out a very good example. Saul of Tarsus, who not only denied Christ, but persecuted those of the churches who called on His Name. He was not only there when Stephen was executed, he was the instigator to his stoning death, as scholars point out, by virtue of the fact that he watched over the garments of those who executed Stephen.

But he was of the elect from the very beginning. He was one of God's children. He was a strict Pharisee, a Hebrew of Hebrews, scholar, lawyer, and persecutor, but he was God's child from before the foundation of the world.

This is not my teaching. It is Paul's. Listen to Ephesians 1:3-5

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,....."

He was elect from the beginning. Elect unto salvation, and elect unto a task that was set aside for him in God's economy. He made this plain and clear when, along with Barnabas, he laid claim to Isaiah 49:6, in Acts 13:46-47:

Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

Hinduism is not God's, true, but to make a blanket statement that all Hindus cannot possibly have anyone elect of God among them for His heavenly kingdom simply on the basis that they are Hindus is untrue, and cannot be backed up by Scripture. Are you saying also that God could not possibly have anyone among the Chinese people because they are Buddhists or Confucianists ?

Election happened before the foundation of the world, Rev., not after, and it is far different from conversion, which may happen at the point of regeneration, or after.

A Hindu may be regenerated, that is, while practicing his religion he may come to the realization, by the operation of the Spirit, that there is but One God, and that salvation can only be thru this God, and this Hindu may not know this God's Name. This regeneration is purely by the Spirit, the gospel preached by the Spirit, in the same manner that the Spirit preached the gospel to His people before Christ.

Conversion comes thru hearing.

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But what if no one came to give gospel instruction for the elect Hindu's benefit. Is it God's fault ? Will God erase this man's name from His book because He does not know the why's and wherefore's and howfore's of his salvation, here in time ?

In fact, this is the true and unadulterated gospel, and the Christ of my gospel is the true, unbesmirched Christ, Rev. Mitchell. The Christ of my gospel is not bound by the geographical limits of man, or the inability of man to fully grasp the magnitude of His mercy here in time.

The Christ of my gospel is the Christ of Paul's gospel. He came to save sinners. (1 Tim 1:15).

Show me the Scripture that the sinners whom Christ came to save must FIRST OF ALL, not be Hindu, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Atheist, or Seventh Day Adventist. And that they must FIRST OF ALL, know that they are sinners, incapable of saving themselves, and trust in His blood and know His Name first before they can be objects of God's mercy in Christ.

The Christ of my gospel is the Christ of Matthew 1:21 -"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Again, I ask you, show me the Scripture that says it is impossible for Him to have elected anyone unto salvation who are of the Hindu religion.

No, I have not preached another gospel.

My gospel says Christ, and Christ only, is Savior.
His blood, and His blood alone, atones and washes.
His Name, and His Name only, is given among men whereby men must be saved.

My knowledge, my theology, my creed, my upbringing, my conduct, has nothing at all to do with His being Savior.

 

Not if it's a good one! :laugh:

If this is what is being said, I agree. But that is what I was trying to clarify, because there is a difference between saying a Hindu or Muslim could be one of the elect and mean by that they would be saved and trust in Christ before death, and saying a Hindu or Muslim is elect and can be saved without knowing Christ.

 

Okay, it seems you are saying a Hindu can be saved without knowing Christ.

Since you never answered my question directly, I will take this as your answer since it's about as close as you've come.

Are you saying all men are saved? Are you universalist? Would you answer that simple question, please?

 

You are quoting Scriptures which speak of people who are already God's own. Their pleasing God pertains not to their eternal salvation but to their conduct here on earth towards Him.

The unelect are spiritually dead, and therefore cannot diligently seek him.

Note that this is the Hall of Faith chapter. None of these mentioned here are unsaved.

They put their profession of faith in practice, which can only happen to the converted regenerate.

This principle, "without faith it is impossible to please Him", is as true of us, who call ourselves Christians, as it is as true of the characters named in Hebrews 11, who are indeed Christians. Again, this does not pertain to the unelect, or to the subject matter of do all roads lead to heaven, unless you are saying that it is our faith that ultimately makes us redeemed in the eyes of God.

And the Bible says that the Christians are those whom Christ redeemed unto Himself, whom God the Father had drawn unto Him, whose names were written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, who are scattered throughout the world, found in all ages, nations, tongues, and kindreds.

No, this is the human religion of who and what a Christian is. Like I said, show me where Scripture requires that a Christian, one whom the blood of Christ covered, cleansed, and justified before God, must NOT be Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or any other religion.

You are speaking of converts to Biblical doctrines.

God's redemtion of His elect in Christ is not restricted by these Christians' non-conversion to Christ here in time. Unless you are saying that time is all that matters.

The elect, wherever and whoever they are, are spiritually quickened by the Holy Spirit, not by the hearing of the gospel, or obedience thereto.

Obedience to the gospel is a mark of one's quickening.

A Hindu who is of the elect, and who has been quickened by the Spirit, will convert to the teachings of Christ once he hears it preached by a true gospel preacher.

But, again, I ask, what if no gospel preacher ever gets to him ?

You kinda remind me of lawyers. Yes, or no.

Yes.

 

I think Heb 11 speaks of saving faith as well;the references to the OT characters who had faith are in there. That is how they were saved. How can anyone please God without faith in Him?

But no one seeks the true God, according to the Bible.

And we are redeemed through faith in Christ. It is by grace but through faith. Faith is not a work. The Bible, in fact, contrasts faith and works.

Show me a scripture which says that Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim is saved.

I can show you plenty that condemn those who worship false gods.

Are you saying they believe after death, or get another chance after death?

I'm not talking about obedience but faith. What do you say about "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God," Romans 10.

So he is then a Christian, not a Hindu.

Then he is not the elect.

:laugh: :laugh: Well, I used to be a paralegal and worked for attorneys for years.

 

I think I answered this in one of my posts.
I am not a universalist.
I do not believe that all men are saved.
I do believe that God elected people unto salvation from all men, regardless of whether they are Chinese (Buddhists, Confucianists, or Taoists), Japanese (Buddhists, generally), Indian or Indonesian (Hindus, Muslim), Southeast Asian (Catholic, Buddhist, etc), American (Indians, Whites, Blacks, and everything else in between. Christians, Catholics, Baptists, and everything else in between).

All men of all nations and of all tongues have among them those of God's elect.

Not all of God's elect will hear the gospel preached and taught by men, therefore not all will believe the gospel to their temporal benefit, and not all will be converted, but all will be quickened, regenerated, born again from above, by the Holy Spirit at some point in their lives.

There.

 

Okay, thanks for answering!

I think then you are an inclusivist.

I started a thread on inclusivism on the BB a few months ago, but there was not much reaction to it (though a few inclusivists on the BB did respond). I think maybe that's because inclusivism is getting more popular in the church
because people don't like saying one must know the name of the historical Christ to be saved.

 

Saving faith is another one of those terminologies formulated by Arminians and which is never found in the Bible with regards to the eternal destiny of God's people.

If saving faith is of any relevance to the Scriptures at all, it is in what I call timely, or temporal, salvation, which refers to salvation from false doctrines, false practices, and timely circumstances like physical danger, or illness, or such things as would normally require one to put trust in God.

As far as eternal salvation is concerned, it is outside of the faith of the sinner. It is all OF the Lord, all OF Christ, and therefore, all glory and honor belongs to Him, and Him only.

True. Even the elect, the regenerated, converted, elect, oftentimes are guilty of this, not seeking the true God. At least I know I am.

That is why it is, I think, a disservice to the Holiness of God, to teach that a fallen sinner has the ability by himself and without the work of the Spirit, to seek forgiveness, and experience true Godly repentance, and therefore experience the joy of salvation.

David, Solomon, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, some of the Judges, Paul, Peter, all of these great heroes of the faith at one time or another did not walk God's line.

Well, I can go through a lot of words again, but, like I always tell those who ask, "they all gon' buhlieve what they all wan' buhlieve, and ain't nobody's methinks is gon' mean nuthin".

But (sorry, I couldn't resist this), I take that statement in Ephesians to be that the faith is a manifestation of the grace which saved us, not an instrument by itself unto salvation, since even faith is a gift of God.

Oh, I won't contest that. But an elect worshipping a false god in ignorance is not going to turn him into an unelect. His election was done way before the first star was ever made by God. However, he misses out on the temporal blessings and peace that the gospelled (gosh, I'm running out of English, Marcia) elect experiences, and reaps the timely punishment and curses that come with worshipping false gods.

No. But they will open their eyes in heaven. After all, they are citizens of heaven by eternal, divine, and Sovereign decree of God. They were all redeemed by the blood of Christ for the glory of the Father, and their ultimate decision is heaven, to be with God, not based on their works, or life, or conversion, but based on God's mercy, and on Christ's work in their behalf.

Often quoted out of context by those who would like to present a Christ who cannot have an effective Salvation without a redeemed fallen sinner who preaches the gospel. No disrespect meant.
Read the context, Marcia.
This is one example where the word saved must be studied in context to understand whether it is referring to eternal salvation or to timely salvation, and this speaks of the latter.
He was speaking of the true Israel (the elect) within national Israel, who are still in the grips of Judaism and its rituals and rules and regulations, who have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
Study it verse by verse.
Paul has a direct charge from Jesus, as an apostle, to preach the gospel, and he was dead serious in wanting to obey that charge, albeit his assignment was the Gentiles, not the Jews.

No. He was a Christian by divine election and decree. Chosen in Christ, hid in Christ, accepted in the beloved. Foreknown, predestinated, called, justified, and glorified (Romans 8:29-30). Christ have always referred to those who are His as His sheep. He always spoke of them in the possessive sense.

And then he was a Hindu by birth, by nationality perhaps an Indian or an Indonesian. Raised a Hindu, until he was quickened by the Spirit of God, and later converted to a religion this fallen world calls Christianity.

He is, always was, always will be. His election does not depend on timely circumstances such as when he heard the gospel, or if he hears the gospel at all.
It does not depend on the gospel preacher, who may be Baptist (SBC, IFB, BBF, or PB), Episcopal, Methodist, Full Gospel, Catholic, getting to where he lives, because that gospel preacher is limited by things like money, desire, eagerness, health, denominational "requirements", and all those things that man set for rules and systems, which makes it plain why I always say that God's ability to save does not depend on man.

If he is not elect because he did not hear the gospel, we might as well teach that salvation is a fully cooperative undertaking between God and man, and therefore the glory is not just the Lord's.

Oh, that explains it.

Well, in my "bad boy" days they put me as political officer for an underground unit, and p.o.'s like to "elucidate" on issues.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Marcia,

I still do not understand what an inclusivist is.
Please "elucidate".
thanks.

 

I am not Arminian.

I don't disagree with this. We would not have salvation at all if God were just. It is only because of his grace that we can be redeemed. But that is applied or comes through faith.

This applies to you as well, right?

Even if it is, that does not mean a Hindu is saved without knowing Christ. You seem to be arguing something else here -- where faith comes from. But there are plenty of Calvinists who would not agree with you on your other points about a Hindu dying and going to heaven.

So a Hindu dies a Hindu and wakes up a Christian in heaven? Is that what you are saying? So they formed no relationship with Christ before death but now suddenly they have one?

Of course it doesn't. But God still uses men! God isn't depending on them; he uses them.

 

An inclusivist believes that one can be saved without knowing of or believing in the historical Jesus Christ. So a Buddhist, never hearing of Jesus, can be saved.

There are different kinds of inclusivism, and I am no expert, but one kind believes that the Buddhist (or Hindu) has something in his faith that is from God and is salvific.

Some inclusivists say that a Hindu could believe in the true God through Hinduism somehow. I don't see how since the Hindu God (chief god, that is) is not at all like the bibilcal God and is a false god. Some think Muslims are saved by believing in the god of Islam, Allah.

C S Lewis has a good example of this in the Narnia Chronicles in the last book where a warrior says after death he has always worshipped Tash, a false god. But God accepts him anyway, saying that his service to Tash was service to Him (God).

 

Well, then, call me that, for as long as we both understand that I am saying that his salvation is OF Christ, and not because he is a Buddhist, or that there is something salvific in his religion, like that of CS Lewis' character.

If knowing of, or believing in the historical Jesus Christ, is an integral, inseparable part of one's eternal salvation, then according to that doctrine, how did the people of the Old Testament get saved when the historical Christ has not arrived on the scene yet.

Now those thoughts are strange to me. I do not believe, hold to, or teach those doctrines.

Let me recap what I have been saying in so many words in so many posts, if I can:

1. That it is God, in Christ, who established a relationship with His people, not the other way around, so, yes, in answer to one of your posts, a Hindu dies a Hindu and opens his eyes in heaven;

2. That knowing of the doctrines about Christ, his blood, his church, the gospel, and all that stuff we know as believers and converts, while good for the edification of our souls, good for our instructions, good for our hearts, is not essential to our eternal salvation. Ignorance of these do not determine our eternal destiny which have been determined for us by the Father for our own good and secured for us by Christ at the cross in Calvary here in time;

Thank you for your interaction, and I appreciate that you have maintained your Christianity and not looked down at me through your nose because you find my beliefs contrary to mainstream doctrines abundant in this board.

 

To find out what the great Baptist Oprah says about this topic, go to this link:
http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/

Go down the page to the bottom of the page and click on link that says "click here to view video segment of the Oprah show"

Just curious Pinoy, would you agree with Oprah?

 

I took one look at these......

And the answer to your question is "no", because (1) there is only one way to God, and that is Jesus, and (2) acting like Jesus does not mean you do belong to Him.

 

good, I thought you might say that... did you watch the video?