The Sin of Unbelief

[Rippon]

The "known world" at the time of Christ was very small. I believe that the Apostles and the early believers did reach the known world at that time from my understanding of the Scriptures.

1 Thessalonians 1:7-8 So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia.
For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing.

The faith of the Thessalonica church was spread abroad everywhere throughout the known world. I don't doubt God's Word. I recognize the conditions under which the early believers were under and see how these things were possible, and look at our conditions and understand why people are so skeptical of the historical facts of the Bible.

Look again:
Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
--The Word of God was spread abroad primarily through persecution. People went everywhere, or were scattered preaching the Word. Even Thomas went as far as India.

Ya' see this is what lands you in trouble when you apply a univeral,absolute meaning to things which in context (and reality) should not be taken that way.

The known world was a limited scope of humanity.You have already acknowledged that.But,there were still many people groups as yet undiscovered.The Gospel did not reach North and South America (though Mormons believe it).The Gospel did not reach all of Asia.The Gospel did not reach most of Africa ( not just the northern area).The Gospel did not reach Australia and New Zealand.Many other examples could be given.

So you see what was known was covered.What was unknown -- was not.

 

[Rippon]

Now consider:
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:
--People are without excuse. They are without excuse to know the triune Godhead, and if that be true, then they are without excuse to know Jesus Christ.

Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
--God has put his law (moral law) within the hearts of every man. They instinctively know the difference between right and wrong, and instinctively know that there is a God. However they make excuses. And they accuse others. Their consciences bother them. They know about God.

They know about Intelligent Design:
Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

There is no reason, not only to believe in a god, but to believe in The God, and to believe in Jesus Christ.

I affirm all the passages you gave.In past conversations I have done the same.But you still are not figuring the following out.Though everyone stands guilty,and without excuse before God all people have not heard of Christ and the Gospel.They will still be condemned to perdition -- but it's not because they have rejected Christ and His Gospel.

You made an unwarranted extrapolation when you made the leap that these people must know about the Triune God and Christ Himself.That's just a plain,unsustained assumption with no basis in fact.There is no logic there.And Scripture doesn't lead anyone to that conclusion.

 

[Rippon]

Now look at some common facts that people tend to overlook.
--The largest religion in the world today is Islam, and is also the fastest growing religion. Islam is a religion of the rejection of Jesus Christ. The Koran speaks more of Jesus Christ than it does of Mohammed.
The Koran speaks of the virgin birth of Christ.
It speaks much about Mary and with high regard.
It speaks of the miracles of Christ.
It refers to Christ as the Word.
It teaches that Christ is coming again.
It teaches about the trinity--albeit that they should reject the trinity, however the knowledge is still there.

I don't see all this is relevant to the point of the OP.

BTW,when you say that "it [Koran] speaks much about Mary and with high regard." I had to laugh. It says that Christians believe she is one of the members of the Trinity.That's a lot more than "high regard".

As I said earlier: What Muslims think Christians believe the Trinity is is terribly wrong.They say Christians believe in three gods -- that we are Tritheists.They think we believe in God,Mary And Jesus as members of the Trinity.And they reject that -- rightly so.

Since they have to go by the Koran -- they insist that's what Christians believe.You can try to tell them differently -- but the hardcore guys will deny it and say "No,you believe that God,Mary,and Jesus are the Trinity."

Have you had these conversations with them?I have.That's their response.

Just as it is with other cults -- Islam distorts the Christian meaning of words.They have their own definition.But what the Koran teaches about Jesus is a far cry from the biblical understanding -- blasphemous actually.

So,just because Christ is spoken of,His miracles also -- it's not "knowledge"in the proper sense of the word.

But as I've said,this mention of Islam is off-track.

 

[DHK]

Ya' see this is what lands you in trouble when you apply a univeral,absolute meaning to things which in context (and reality) should not be taken that way.

The known world was a limited scope of humanity.You have already acknowledged that.But,there were still many people groups as yet undiscovered.The Gospel did not reach North and South America (though Mormons believe it).The Gospel did not reach all of Asia.The Gospel did not reach most of Africa ( not just the northern area).The Gospel did not reach Australia and New Zealand.Many other examples could be given.

So you see what was known was covered.What was unknown -- was not.

We can write about the known, not about the unknown.
We write about the "known world" because the rest of the world is "unknown."
All the evidence of life in ancient civilizations outside of the Palestine are (and near areas) are unknown. We have no hard evidence that some of those areas were even populated before the time of Christ, unless you rely on evolutionary evidence which I am not about to do.
Our world is relatively young, possibly as young as 6,000 years.
I would not dogmatically say that there were people in (Australia or even North America, for example), but I can't dogmatically deny it. The history that I know is silent. The other history I know says that we have been here for about ten million years (or is it billion), and that I reject.

 

[Rippon]

We can write about the known, not about the unknown.
We write about the "known world" because the rest of the world is "unknown."
All the evidence of life in ancient civilizations outside of the Palestine are (and near areas) are unknown. We have no hard evidence that some of those areas were even populated before the time of Christ, unless you rely on evolutionary evidence which I am not about to do.
Our world is relatively young, possibly as young as 6,000 years.
I would not dogmatically say that there were people in (Australia or even North America, for example), but I can't dogmatically deny it. The history that I know is silent. The other history I know says that we have been here for about ten million years (or is it billion), and that I reject.

There were millions living (at the time of the Apostles)in China,Japan and other Asian areas;not to mention other far-flung regions.

My views have nothing to do with evolution.That's a non-starter.

 

[steaver]

There were millions living (at the time of the Apostles)in China,Japan and other Asian areas;not to mention other far-flung regions.

My views have nothing to do with evolution.That's a non-starter.

How would you "believe" this unless you accept Evolutionist tools such as the faulty carbon dating method?

What is the source of fact you point to that there were millions living in these regions at the time of the Apostles?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon: I affirm all the passages you gave. In past conversations I have done the same. but you still are not figuring the following out. Though everyone stands guilty, and without excuse before God all people have not heard of Christ and the Gospel. They will still be condemned to perdition -- but it's not because they have rejected Christ and His Gospel.

You made an unwarranted extrapolation when you made the leap that these people must know about the Triune God and Christ Himself. That's just a plain, unsubstantiated assumption with no basis in fact. There is no logic there. And Scripture doesn't lead anyone to that conclusion.

HP: Excellent points Rippon. :thumbs: I might add that even though, via intuitive and objective truth, they certainly had some idea of a Supreme Being, they certainly had no idea as to the plan of salvation. They rejected the light they had, but that is not, as you so aptly point out, equated to the rejection of the gospel.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon: My views have nothing to do with evolution. That's a non-starter.

HP:I believe we finally have an excellent illustration of a ‘red herring’ DHK likes to refer to.

 

[Rippon]

How would you "believe" this unless you accept Evolutionist tools such as the faulty carbon dating method?

What is the source of fact you point to that there were millions living in these regions at the time of the Apostles?

Why do you guys (you and DHK)bring up that evolutionary stuff?What in the world does carbon-dating have to do with this conversation at all?! I have already said that it has nothing to do with the fact that millions were living outside the known world (i.e.the Roman Empire)at the time of the close of the Canon.

Most people living at that time were not a part of the known world.The Roman Empire was just a bit more than a quarter of the world's population.The Han Dynasty of present day China was about 60 million back then -- which was slightly less than the Roman Empire's population.

 

[LeBuick]

HP: Sorry but I do not follow your statement. How am I mixing ideologies? Can you word it in a different way?

They are not going to hell because of unbelief.

The reason they are going to hell is because their sins are not forgiven.

You don't go to hell because of what you do, you go to hell because of what you don't do. If you don't accept Christ as your Lord and Savior then your destination is clear.

 

[steaver]

Why do you guys (you and DHK)bring up that evolutionary stuff?What in the world does carbon-dating have to do with this conversation at all?! I have already said that it has nothing to do with the fact that millions were living outside the known world (i.e.the Roman Empire)at the time of the close of the Canon.

Most people living at that time were not a part of the known world.The Roman Empire was just a bit more than a quarter of the world's population.The Han Dynasty of present day China was about 60 million back then -- which was slightly less than the Roman Empire's population.

Ok, forget the evolutionary stuff. What resource do you site that tells us there were millions of people living in these regions mentioned previously?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

LeBuick: You don't go to hell because of what you do, you go to hell because of what you don't do.

HP: That is a presupposition not supported in Scripture. “Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.”

Lebuick: If you don't accept Christ as your Lord and Savior then your destination is clear.

HP: That is true but that does NOT establish your first remark above.

 

[LeBuick]

HP: That is a presupposition not supported in Scripture. “Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.”

This is a fact, all we have sinned and come short of the glory. This doesn't remove the obligation to accept Christ if you want that separation removed.

HP: That is true but that does NOT establish your first remark above.

But it does, and it does in a big way. It is because of sin that we need Jesus. Don't consider ones iniquities any greater than another's, there are two types of people in the end, the unrepentant lost and the repented saved. There is no in between.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

LeBuick: This is a fact, all we have sinned and come short of the glory. This doesn't remove the obligation to accept Christ if you want that separation removed.

HP: No it does not, but the reason one has the malady of sin is not due to the rejection of Jesus Christ. It started and is caused by sin, the willful disobedience to known commandments of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
HP: That is true but that does NOT establish your first remark above.

LeBuick: But it does, and it does in a big way. It is because of sin that we need Jesus.

HP: Yes, the reason we need Jesus is because of our sins, but again that does NOT establish the damning sin as the rejection of Jesus as you wrongfully assume. You have it precisely backwards. The reason we need Jesus Christ is due to our sins. If one never hears the name of Jesus, tthey will still be held accountible for their sins, not the rejection of a cure they knew nothing about.

LeBuick: Don't consider ones iniquities any greater than another's, there are two types of people in the end, the unrepentant lost and the repented saved. There is no in between.

HP: No disagreement here. It should be clearly noted that there is no true repentance without turning from sin. If one remains in their sins, it is living proof that repentance has not taken place.

 

[DHK]

I don't see all this is relevant to the point of the OP.

It has a lot to do with the OP. It is an example. Over 20% of the world's population is Islamic. People claim: but what about those poor Muslim people who have never heard the gospel before. This is the argument that is being put forth. It is bogus.

BTW,when you say that "it [Koran] speaks much about Mary and with high regard." I had to laugh. It says that Christians believe she is one of the members of the Trinity.That's a lot more than "high regard".

I never said the actual gospel message is found in the Koran. I never said the information was totally accurate. That wasn't my point. The point is that a Muslim cannot claim that he has never heard of Christ, for he has. The greatest prophet next to Mohammed is Christ. If they want to know more about Christ they know where to find out.

I know of a Muslim who couldn't understand how one of her own prophets could be so ill spoken of and yet still be a prophet. She sought out a Bible, and at least found a gospel of John. She read about Christ, and thought how could someone do such wonderful things, give such tremendous promises, and at the same time be as bad as the Muslim clerics say he is. Shortly after she was saved.

I know of another Muslim that was also converted to Christianity having much the same testimony except that she was led to a Christian who explained to her more clearly the plan of salvation. She was saved. The fact remains: they heard of Christ first in their own Korans.

As I said earlier: What Muslims think Christians believe the Trinity is is terribly wrong.They say Christians believe in three gods -- that we are Tritheists.They think we believe in God,Mary And Jesus as members of the Trinity.And they reject that -- rightly so.

Quite true, and whose job is it to correct those misunderstandings? If the ideas of Jesus got into the Koran, then there must be someone around to correct them. The command of the Koran is to seek out a Christian or even a Jew if you don't understand the Koran. Ironic isn't it? The fact still remains that Christ is mentioned in the Koran many times, and they do hear the name of Christ in the Koran. Once they have heard the name of Christ, they can do what they can to find out more about Him.

Since they have to go by the Koran -- they insist that's what Christians believe.You can try to tell them differently -- but the hardcore guys will deny it and say "No,you believe that God,Mary,and Jesus are the Trinity."

Say what you will, but do you deny that the Holy Spirit is able to work in a person's heart to change it?

Have you had these conversations with them?I have.That's their response.

Believe me, I have had many!

Just as it is with other cults -- Islam distorts the Christian meaning of words.They have their own definition.But what the Koran teaches about Jesus is a far cry from the biblical understanding -- blasphemous actually.

So,just because Christ is spoken of,His miracles also -- it's not "knowledge"in the proper sense of the word.

But as I've said,this mention of Islam is off-track.

The whole point of the illustration is that cults and other religions have heard of Christ, and rejected him, but have heard him. The rejection of Christ is on their hands. One cannot be a Muslim without hearing about Christ. One cannot use that lame excuse: But what about the Muslims that have never heard about Christ. The "have never heard about Christ," because they flatly refuse to hear about Christ. They reject him, as did the Pharisees who crucified Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The point is that a Muslim cannot claim that he has never heard of Christ, for he has

.

HP: That may or may not be the case, but who are you to make such a bold unsubstantiated statement? If from ones youngest years the truth had been hidden in the midst of lies, who are you to say that such a one, never hearing the truth from any other angle, has really heard the truth?? Are you God, and able to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart?

By the way, on yet another issue, I feel led to remind you of a story found in Scripture. Remember Haman.

 

[DHK]

.

HP: That may or may not be the case, but who are you to make such a bold unsubstantiated statement? If from ones youngest years the truth had been hidden in the midst of lies, who are you to say that such a one, never hearing the truth from any other angle, has really heard the truth??

Perhaps in some way I can liken it to my own testimony.
I was in a "cult" the RCC for twenty years. I can testify that I never heard the "gospel message" at any time in the Catholic Church. Not until someone shared it with me on the campus of university did I hear the gospel. But I had heard the name of Christ many times. Now who is to blame?

If I had wanted to know more about "this Christ" I could have gone "against Catholicism" at that time, and purchased a Bible, sought out someone who knew more and asked more questions. That would have been unlikely. I was a brainwashed Catholic, and before the age of 20 I was under the authority of my father.

In my case I have to attribute it to the timing of the Holy Spirit. The Lord knew I would respond to the gospel in His time, not mine. He sent the right person at the right time, when I was the right age. And he knew that I would respond in the right way. It sounds very Calvinistic, and I am not, but the Bible does say: "elect according to the foreknowledge of God."

God's ways are higher than our ways; his thoughts are higher than our thoughts. How can a finite man understand an infinite God? We can't "The secret things belong unto the Lord." He has the answers; we don't.
"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Perhaps in some way I can liken it to my own testimony....

"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

HP: I am not you or God, so I cannot say when it was that you received the gospel. I would just add that the possibility exists that many of other false religions might have failed to hear the true gospel preached to them as well. One thing is for certain, that regardless if the true gospel has reached the ears of such individuals, they will be held accountable NOT for what they did not know and understand, but for that which they did know and understand and for their sins, i.e., their willful rebellion against know commandments of God, whether subjectively understood as is the case of intuitive knowledge, or subjectively understood by nature, Divine revelation of other issues besides or apart from salvations plan. Every man will stand before go and give an account for the knowledge and light they possessed, not for that which they knew nothing about. Rejecting salvations message will indeed seal the fate of those hearing and rejecting, but such rejection is not the damning sin. Their sinful rebellion is what they are being held accountable to God for regardless of whether or not they have heard of the cure.

Yes, we can be assured, as the Scripture you point to so aptly states, the Judge of all the earth will indeed do right with all men and in all cases.

 

[Rippon]

DHK,from your post #19 on you were attempting to justify something.You were trying to say that the whole known world at the time of the early Apostles was being evangelized.You based that on your understanding of 1Thess.1:7,8;Acts 8:4 and Titus 2:11.

You also claimed that there were not many (if any)people living outside of the known world.

My point has been that most of the world's population at that time was not in the known world.Further,those who have never heard of Christ or His Gospel would not be eternally condemned for their rejection of Christ.You can't reject that which has never been presented in the first place.They will spent eternity in perdition for their sins.

The whole subject of Islam is wrong-headed.First of all it did not start until the 7th century.That's way beyond the time frame of the era of which we have been speaking.

 

[DHK]

DHK,from your post #19 on you were attempting to justify something.You were trying to say that the whole known world at the time of the early Apostles was being evangelized.You based that on your understanding of 1Thess.1:7,8;Acts 8:4 and Titus 2:11.

You also claimed that there were not many (if any)people living outside of the known world.

My point has been that most of the world's population at that time was not in the known world.Further,those who have never heard of Christ or His Gospel would not be eternally condemned for their rejection of Christ.You can't reject that which has never been presented in the first place.They will spent eternity in perdition for their sins.

The whole subject of Islam is wrong-headed.First of all it did not start until the 7th century.That's way beyond the time frame of the era of which we have been speaking.

I fully realize that. I was only using Islam as an example for the world today.
For you to convince me of civilizations elsewhere, you have to offer historical evidence from the time of Christ. What I gave you is Scriptural evidence that the Word of God went out to the known world at that time.
Then I began to give evidence how the Word of God can be seen to be going out to the known world at this time.

Let me ask you. Just before Christ ascended into heaven he gave his Apostles one last command. It is called the Great Commission:

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Into the hands of eleven men he committed the salvation of the entire world, not just the known world, but the entire world, of all ages, every age to come. He had no back-up plan. This plan would not be given to angels, but just to these eleven men. What if they would fail? Then what? Did Christ have any back-up plan at all? No. It was their duty, and their duty alone to see that this gospel was carried out to all men. Did these men fail in their duty in carrying out their commission to the entire world?