Hands Off Indigenous Peoples, No Christian Missionaries Allowed

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: In the end, if they do not hear the gospel, their blood will be on our hands. What are you doing for Christ? What is your part in carrying our the Great Commission, and making sure that everyone has a chance to hear the Gospel.

HP: If I accept your stated position at face value, all will hear, therefore it is impossible for blood to be required at anyone’s hands, for again, as you have stated, the ONLY sin that damns one to hell is the rejection of Jesus Christ. All MUST hear in order to reject. That puts the onus on every individual and eliminates entirely any blood on anyone’s hands but the one doing the rejecting. That is contrary to the Word of God as you point out, but your argument remains standing directly in contradiction to that truth. You give a warning then defeat that warning with your logic that declares just the opposite.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: It is substantiated by Scripture, over and over again.

1. Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
--Do I deny what God has said, just because I do not understand the methods of God, or how God accomplishes his promise. No, I believe what He says. And here He says that He brings salvation to all men. Nothing could be more clearly stated than this Scripture right here.

HP: Here is your one proof text that uses the word ‘all’ in relationship to the gospel appearing to “all men.” I believe you stand alone with such an interpretation, trying to make this verse state that all men universally have received the gospel message. I have not read one recognized commentator, nor heard one preacher in my lifetime (and I have frequented more than one denominational circle for certain) that has ever claimed that verse to imply what you are claiming it to state. Just the same, you have the right to stand firm on this text if you so desire. I believe that you are in error by doing so, but that is your choice.

DHK: 2. Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
--God Himself has declared that man is without excuse.

HP: This verse does not even mention the gospel for one. This verse speaks to knowledge of God’s existence and evidence of invisible things, and as such all men stand before God without excuse, NOT for the rejection of Jesus Christ as you evidently read into the text, for the gospel or the rejection of the gospel is not alluded to in the least.

DHK: 3. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
God
--God is not cruel nor vindicative. He is faithful to His Word and a God of love.
He claims to be the only Way to Heaven. If that claim is true then he would provide a way for all men to get there. The same holds true for such Scripture as John 3:18,36.

HP: That is simply a man-made philosophical position that happens to be in error. It has a presupposition a definition of love that is not found anywhere in Scripture or reason. It presupposes that if a pardon is not offered to all, it is unjust for God to hold man accountable. That would only hold water remotely IF the Augustinian dogma of original sin was true, which it is not. Due to the fact that God creates man as a responsible moral creation and provides man with the abilities to do that which He commands, God is completely Just for condemning man for their willful disobedience against known commandments of God. God is under absolutely NO obligation whatsoever to provide a pardon for any man. Scripture plainly teaches that as truth. Ro 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

DHK: "He that believeth not is condemned already."
--He would never say that unless he provided a way to believe. God is not cruel and vindictive. One must study the attributes of God. He is the WAY, the only way, and he provides direction to that Way. Because you may not uderstand his method, does not give you the right to blame God as being cruel. And that is what you are doing.

HP: Speaking of slander, I do believe we have a prime example of it here. I have NEVER blamed, nor would I ever blame God as being cruel in any way whatsoever. No argument that I have used can be shown to imply or state that God is cruel. Your remarks here are as false as they are slanderous. There is no need in any debate to use such personal attacks and slanderous remarks. Foisting false notions upon the other ‘without a cause’ does nothing to exemplify Christian charity. Such tactics and remarks have no place on a Christian debate forum.

DHK: Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

HP: Now that indeed is true, but it does nothing to substantiate your position, nor detract from mine.

DHK: 4. The Great Commission was not given in vain.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

HP: Again, the great commission shows forth the opposite conclusion as you have came to. It in no way insinuates or implies that all will hear the gospel just because man was commanded to go to all. A command does not necessitate its desired end as you seem to be suggesting.

 

[Andre]

HP: I fully agree with DHK in his debate with Andre on this point.:thumbs:

How, then, do you account for Paul using the exact same phrasing about "the law being written on the hearts" of believers as per Romans 10? I have come to learn that Paul is a very careful and thoughtful writer. I think it highly unlikely that he would introduce the ambiguity that your position would seem to require - that in one case, he is referring to the law written on the hearts of everyone (Romans 2) and in the other, referring to those who get that law written on their hearts as a result of faith.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andre: How, then, do you account for Paul using the exact same phrasing about "the law being written on the hearts" of believers as per Romans 10? I have come to learn that Paul is a very careful and thoughtful writer. I think it highly unlikely that he would introduce the ambiguity that your position would seem to require - that in one case, he is referring to the law written on the hearts of everyone (Romans 2) and in the other, referring to those who get that law written on their hearts as a result of faith.

HP: The 'law written on the hearts of men' has many different ideas one can safely attach to it. It may refer to the mere intuitive understanding of right and wrong or it may be seen as referring to the ten commandments. It also can point to the two commandments that express the whole law in two simple points. The law of God can also refer to whatsoever can be accomplished in or by faith. That might be two completely different things to two different people.

There is no reason to hold Paul to such a hard and fast rule as to what the ‘law written on the heart’ entails, for it can obviously mean many things when it is used in different senses and speaking of men and women with differing amounts of light and circumstances.