How are they saved if they never hear the gospel?

[rturner76]

Scripture characterizes the condition as indebtedness, and makes it clear that the one to whom the debt is owned is fully able to forgive the debt.

That would make sense because a debt that has been forgiven would have no need for punishment.

 

[Derf]

Nobody seriously argues that Job is not saved, yet Job was not even under the Abrahamic covenant.

I would be willing to argue that Job was under the Abrahamic covenant.

 

[Derf]

Scripture characterizes the condition as indebtedness, and makes it clear that the one to whom the debt is owned is fully able to forgive the debt.

I think this is true, but if so, why couldn't God just forgive our sins without the death of Christ?

 

[RDKirk]

I would be willing to argue that Job was under the Abrahamic covenant.

If you'll notice, neither God nor Job mentions it, nor does Job perform any Mosaic Covenant actions. Most scholars agree that Job is not a descendant of Abraham. Where we would expect either of them to refer to God's actions for the Hebrew patriarchs, God instead refers only to His work in creation....the testimony that Paul tells us is for the pagans.

 

[RDKirk]

I think this is true, but if so, why couldn't God just forgive our sins without the death of Christ?

On the question of whether God must exact punishment, the answer is, "No," He can choose grace.

But He has not chosen total grace, but in grace uses the means of substitutionary atonement.

 

[Derf]

If you'll notice, neither God nor Job mentions it, nor does Job perform any Mosaic Covenant actions. Most scholars agree that Job is not a descendant of Abraham. Where we would expect either of them to refer to God's actions for the Hebrew patriarchs, God instead refers only to His work in creation....the testimony that Paul tells us is for the pagans.

He no doubt lived prior to Moses.
There is a Job in the descendents of Issachar
Genesis 46:13 KJV — And the sons of Issachar; Tola, and Phuvah, and Job, and Shimron.

He lived in the land of Uz, which was somewhere in or near Canaan:

Jeremiah 25:20-23 KJV — And all the mingled people, and all the kings of the land of Uz, and all the kings of the land of the Philistines, and Ashkelon, and Azzah, and Ekron, and the remnant of Ashdod, Edom, and Moab, and the children of Ammon, And all the kings of Tyrus, and all the kings of Zidon, and the kings of the isles which are beyond the sea, Dedan, and Tema, and Buz, and all that are in the utmost corners,


The names give us some clues, especially Elihu:
Job 32:2 KJV — Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram

Ram is mentioned in the geneology of David, a great-grand (or great-great-grand) child of Judah, through Pharez.

Ruth 4:18-19 KJV — Now these are the generations of Pharez: Pharez begat Hezron, And Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab,

And a Buz is mentioned among the descedents of Reuben. Those two, Buz and Ram, might not go together (not "kindred"), but they might.

Esau has a son "Eliphaz" who had a son "Teman", so it seems likely there was an Eliphaz the Temanite (Job's friend) around.

Even Job's lifetime of 140 years tells us he probably lived prior to Moses (120 years), but after Abraham (175) years.

 

[bling]

I think this is true, but if so, why couldn't God just forgive our sins without the death of Christ?

Very good! If God forgives your sins 100% there is nothing for Jesus to "Pay" and if Christ pays our debt 100% than there is nothing to be forgiven.
You do not find in the Biblical definition of "forgiveness" also paying the debt, your offending the Creator of the universe cannot be "paid" by any means, but God can forgive.
Christ's life and going to the cross is described as a ransom payment, but who is the underserving kidnapper accept or rejecting the payment?

God is not an undeserving criminal kidnapper, so it cannot be Him.

God does not need to pay satan anything since God can easily and safely take anything satan might possess.

Death, sin and other intangibles cannot change with a payment.

When you go up to a nonbelieving sinner, what are you trying to get him/her to accept: A doctrine, a denomination, a book, a theology, a church or something else. NO, you want the nonbeliever to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and if he does accept a child of God is released to enter the Kingdom and be with God, but if the sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him crucifies” a child is kept out of the Kingdom.

Does this not sound very much like a kidnapping scenario with a ransom being offered?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is described in scripture as the ransom payment?

Could the sinner holding a child of God out of the Kingdom of God, be described as a criminal kidnapper?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is a huge sacrificial payment, like you find with children being ransomed?

Parents will make huge sacrificial ransom payments to have their children released.

The Bible refers to Jesus’ sacrifice as a literal ransom payment:

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time

Heb. 9: 15…now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

 

[Derf]

Very good! If God forgives your sins 100% there is nothing for Jesus to "Pay" and if Christ pays our debt 100% than there is nothing to be forgiven.
You do not find in the Biblical definition of "forgiveness" also paying the debt, your offending the Creator of the universe cannot be "paid" by any means, but God can forgive.
Christ's life and going to the cross is described as a ransom payment, but who is the underserving kidnapper accept or rejecting the payment?

God is not an undeserving criminal kidnapper, so it cannot be Him.

God does not need to pay satan anything since God can easily and safely take anything satan might possess.

Death, sin and other intangibles cannot change with a payment.

When you go up to a nonbelieving sinner, what are you trying to get him/her to accept: A doctrine, a denomination, a book, a theology, a church or something else. NO, you want the nonbeliever to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and if he does accept a child of God is released to enter the Kingdom and be with God, but if the sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him crucifies” a child is kept out of the Kingdom.

Does this not sound very much like a kidnapping scenario with a ransom being offered?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is described in scripture as the ransom payment?

Could the sinner holding a child of God out of the Kingdom of God, be described as a criminal kidnapper?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is a huge sacrificial payment, like you find with children being ransomed?

Parents will make huge sacrificial ransom payments to have their children released.

The Bible refers to Jesus’ sacrifice as a literal ransom payment:

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time

Heb. 9: 15…now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

I don't think kidnapping is quite what is in mind. More like how kings captured in battle would be held for ransom. But our captivity is death, and our captor the grave.

 

[bling]

I don't think kidnapping is quite what is in mind. More like how kings captured in battle would be held for ransom. But our captivity is death, and our captor the grave.

You liked what I had to say about the “ransom”, but come back with another idea.

We are not like a “king” being captured, but very much like the child of the king being captured.

The writers of the NT letters are writing to their first century audience and we are just reading their mail, so we need to keep in mind how that first century audience would understand it, since that is whom, the writer is trying to communicate with. If we were just like the first century audience, we would be better able to understand what was being communicated to us.

At the time everyone would have been formular with Julius Ceasar’s kidnapping at 21 and the huge payment, and the author would know this when addressing his audience.

There is no reason to make an unbelievable huge payment to an intangible grave and death, like the prodigal son being “dead” while in the foreign land, did not keep the son from turning to the father without any ransom being paid.

What I gave you was just an introduction into the huge topic of atonement which is nothing like the six popular interpretations of atonement. This can take us way off the OP topic, which I did not address.

I do not believe in the doctrine of “original sin”, but do feel Adam and Eve were our very best all human representatives who sinned with only one way to sin and the nature they had. With their sinning, all mature adults have been given knowledge of “good and evil”, a law written on our hearts (conscience), which provides tons of ways to sin. There is no need for a nature change of the individual. People prior to reach the age of accountability do not sin and thus are in a safe condition not needing to be saved (they have not sinned). Scripture does not really address these people, but knowing God I feel they would go on to heaven not fulfilling their earthly objective and thus having only a child for wonderful parent type love.

 

[Derf]

You liked what I had to say about the “ransom”, but come back with another idea.

Yep. That's part of having a conversation.

We are not like a “king” being captured, but very much like the child of the king being captured.

The writers of the NT letters are writing to their first century audience and we are just reading their mail, so we need to keep in mind how that first century audience would understand it, since that is whom, the writer is trying to communicate with. If we were just like the first century audience, we would be better able to understand what was being communicated to us.

At the time everyone would have been formular with Julius Ceasar’s kidnapping at 21 and the huge payment, and the author would know this when addressing his audience.

There is no reason to make an unbelievable huge payment to an intangible grave and death, like the prodigal son being “dead” while in the foreign land, did not keep the son from turning to the father without any ransom being paid.

The idea of a ransom did not come from New Testament times, but from OT times:
Exodus 21:30 KJV — If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.

And a ransom from the grave is explicitly spoken of.
Hosea 13:14 KJV — I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

What I gave you was just an introduction into the huge topic of atonement which is nothing like the six popular interpretations of atonement. This can take us way off the OP topic, which I did not address.

Ok. If you have another thread, or want to start one, ping me in it.

I do not believe in the doctrine of “original sin”, but do feel Adam and Eve were our very best all human representatives who sinned with only one way to sin and the nature they had. With their sinning, all mature adults have been given knowledge of “good and evil”, a law written on our hearts (conscience), which provides tons of ways to sin.

Sounds like original sin of some type.

There is no need for a nature change of the individual. People prior to reach the age of accountability do not sin and thus are in a safe condition not needing to be saved (they have not sinned).

Not true. Everybody dies, even infants sonetimes.

Scripture does not really address these people, but knowing God I feel they would go on to heaven not fulfilling their earthly objective and thus having only a child for wonderful parent type love.

Even infants and those under the age of accountability die and need to be ransomed from death.

 

[Gary K]

Yep. That's part of having a conversation.

The idea of a ransom did not come from New Testament times, but from OT times:
Exodus 21:30 KJV — If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.

And a ransom from the grave is explicitly spoken of.
Hosea 13:14 KJV — I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.



Ok. If you have another thread, or want to start one, ping me in it.

Sounds like original sin of some type.

Not true. Everybody dies, even infants sonetimes.

Even infants and those under the age of accountability die and need to be ransomed from death.

The ransom comes concept from the Hebrew term ga'al #1350 in Strong's concordance. The best Biblical evidence of it is the book of Ruth in which Boaz goes to the nearest kinsman of Naomi to buy back her lands which were sold by her husband to pay his debts before they moved to Moab because of a famine.

We find these laws in Leviticus where it speaks of redeeming a poor man's land or him if he has had sell himself to pay his debts. It's also tied to the year of jubilee. Paul speaks of this concept when he said he was sold unto sin.

There are 18 instances of ga'al referring to the redeemer and they all point forward to Jesus' life, death and resurrection. And this concept is found throughout Paul's writings and the disciples on their walk to Emmaus say we thought Jesus was to redeem Israel. John refers to this same concept in Revelation when he talks about those redeemed from the earth. There the Greek word translated as redeemed means to purchase or buy.

It's a fascinating study. I did it about 10 years or so ago and found more than 200 verses in the Bible related to the subject which includes the cities of refuge and the dominion Adam lost when he sinned. I lost all of that data when hackers wrecked my laptop.

 

[Fervent]

Might I ask what you hope to accomplish with such speculation? We know there is salvation through the gospel and we do not know if there is salvation through any other means, and so we must preach the gospel. God may show mercy beyond the gospel message, but such mercy is not in any way guaranteed so it is unwise to go beyond salvation in the gospel. Just preach the gospel, because we know there is salvation within it and let God worry about those who never hear it.

 

[Derf]

Might I ask what you hope to accomplish with such speculation? We know there is salvation through the gospel and we do not know if there is salvation through any other means, and so we must preach the gospel. God may show mercy beyond the gospel message, but such mercy is not in any way guaranteed so it is unwise to go beyond salvation in the gospel. Just preach the gospel, because we know there is salvation within it and let God worry about those who never hear it.

I think it leads to an understanding of how we are saved and what we are saved from. It centers on death, brought by sin. And if death, then the answer is life. We can tell the salvation from death comes to every man...because all are resurrected. What kind of body do you think those who haven't heard the gospel are resurrected into, corruptible or incorruptible?

 

[Fervent]

I think it leads to an understanding of how we are saved and what we are saved from. It centers on death, brought by sin. And if death, then the answer is life. We can tell the salvation from death comes to every man...because all are resurrected. What kind if body do you think those who haven't heard the gospel are resurrected into, corruptible or incorruptible?

Seems a foolish controversy to me, a distraction from the simple message of Jesus Christ at best and possibly giving false hope and a cause for laxity towards the preaching of the gospel. We know there is salvation in none other than Jesus Christ, to go beyond preaching Him and His cross into the realm of speculation and supposition is a dangerous game. All I know is that Jesus Christ gave His life according to the Scripture, and took it back up after 3 days and that in that message there is salvation to those who believe.

 

[Derf]

Seems a foolish controversy to me, a distraction from the simple message of Jesus Christ at best and possibly giving false hope and a cause for laxity towards the preaching of the gospel. We know there is salvation in none other than Jesus Christ, to go beyond preaching Him and His cross into the realm of speculation and supposition is a dangerous game. All I know is that Jesus Christ gave His life according to the Scripture, and took it back up after 3 days and that in that message there is salvation to those who believe.

Ok. Thanks for your comments.

 

[bling]

The idea of a ransom did not come from New Testament times, but from OT times:
Exodus 21:30 KJV — If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
And a ransom from the grave is explicitly spoken of.
Hosea 13:14 KJV — I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

This gets into hermeneutics and the importance of context, context, context, context and context.

The word “ransom” was used in the Old Testament in Hebrew and translated to the Greek to be the same word used in the NT, but that does not mean the people of the first century went back to the OT to defined their definition for words. How was the Greek word “Ransom” defined by the first century audience being addressed by the writers of the NT and not how we today will try to go back to the OT section of the Bible to try to define the word. If the writer is quoting from the OT, then you do want to know how the word were defined in the OT, because that is probably the way the writer is using them.

Some English words used 400 years ago have changed their meaning, looking at later translations of Ex. 21:39-30 (NIV) 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded. The idea is the family might accept payment for the life of their family member killed, instead of the owner of the bull being killed. This would not be an unbelievable huge amount.

Hosea 13:14 (NIV) “I will deliver this people from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. Where, O death, are your plagues? Where, O grave, is your destruction?

God did save a small group of Israel from the destruction so it was not a total wipe out. “Ransom” in the KJV could have the meaning of deliverance.

In the OT the Jews paid a “ransom” of a few coins as a temple tax, but that is a modest amount, paid by the person themselves to enter the temple, and it did not set them “free”.

So, that OT definition does not fit Jesus’, John’s, Paul’s, Peter’s nor the writer of Hebrew’s definition.

The payment is unbelievably huge, a child is being set free, the Father is paying, the child set free goes to the Father and the kidnapper is an undeserving criminal. The ransom in the NT fits a kidnapping scenario.

Ok. If you have another thread, or want to start one, ping me in it.

I will try to find what I started many years ago.

Sounds like original sin of some type.

I am not saying: “I do not believe in original sin”, because Adam and Eve were the first human sinning, but I disagree with the “doctrine” of original sin.

I believe we are born innocent, and sin when we reach the age of accountability, partly because there are so many ways to sin and our nature is the same as Adam and Eve (who sinned with only one way to sin).

Not true. Everybody dies, even infants sonetimes.

Yes, but is death bad in and of itself? Death is the way good and innocent people get to go to heaven and bad people quit doing bad stuff. The problem with infants dying is the fact they will not have fulfilled their earthly objective.

Think of what it would be like if people did not die, sin has perceived pleasure for a season, so would people put-off for eternity humbling themselves to the point of accept God’s pure undeserved charity? Death actually help some nonbelievers to become believers, so should God take that benefit away from them?

Even infants and those under the age of accountability die and need to be ransomed from death.

You say “die” meaning physical death, but then say: “be ransomed from death”, but do they not physically die? In Hosea 13 the author is talking about redeeming (ransoming), some Jews from physical death that is coming to Israel, not spiritual death.

Some infants do physically die, but that does not mean they need saving, they will not fulfill their earthly objective.

 

[FireDragon76]

1 Timothy 4:10 "For therefor we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."

People that argue that somehow this notions detracts from the Gospel aren't dealing with the reality that hellfire preaching doesn't really motivate anybody anymore. This was something Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote about in his Letters and Papers from Prison. That kind of religion is largely a dead letter.

I don't think people that aren't Christians go to hell for all eternity. I believe universal reconciliation is something that is a realistic hope. But we will not be as we are, we will be changed.

This gets into hermeneutics and the importance of context, context, context, context and context.

The word “ransom” was used in the Old Testament in Hebrew and translated to the Greek to be the same word used in the NT, but that does not mean the people of the first century went back to the OT to defined their definition for words. How was the Greek word “Ransom” defined by the first century audience being addressed by the writers of the NT and not how we today will try to go back to the OT section of the Bible to try to define the word. If the writer is quoting from the OT, then you do want to know how the word were defined in the OT, because that is probably the way the writer is using them.

Some English words used 400 years ago have changed their meaning, looking at later translations of Ex. 21:39-30 (NIV) 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded. The idea is the family might accept payment for the life of their family member killed, instead of the owner of the bull being killed. This would not be an unbelievable huge amount.

Hosea 13:14 (NIV) “I will deliver this people from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. Where, O death, are your plagues? Where, O grave, is your destruction?

God did save a small group of Israel from the destruction so it was not a total wipe out. “Ransom” in the KJV could have the meaning of deliverance.

In the OT the Jews paid a “ransom” of a few coins as a temple tax, but that is a modest amount, paid by the person themselves to enter the temple, and it did not set them “free”.

So, that OT definition does not fit Jesus’, John’s, Paul’s, Peter’s nor the writer of Hebrew’s definition.

The payment is unbelievably huge, a child is being set free, the Father is paying, the child set free goes to the Father and the kidnapper is an undeserving criminal. The ransom in the NT fits a kidnapping scenario.

I will try to find what I started many years ago.

I am not saying: “I do not believe in original sin”, because Adam and Eve were the first human sinning, but I disagree with the “doctrine” of original sin.

I believe we are born innocent, and sin when we reach the age of accountability, partly because there are so many ways to sin and our nature is the same as Adam and Eve (who sinned with only one way to sin).

Yes, but is death bad in and of itself? Death is the way good and innocent people get to go to heaven and bad people quit doing bad stuff. The problem with infants dying is the fact they will not have fulfilled their earthly objective.

Think of what it would be like if people did not die, sin has perceived pleasure for a season, so would people put-off for eternity humbling themselves to the point of accept God’s pure undeserved charity? Death actually help some nonbelievers to become believers, so should God take that benefit away from them?

You say “die” meaning physical death, but then say: “be ransomed from death”, but do they not physically die? In Hosea 13 the author is talking about redeeming (ransoming), some Jews from physical death that is coming to Israel, not spiritual death.

Some infants do physically die, but that does not mean they need saving, they will not fulfill their earthly objective.

The notion death is good isn't consonant with Christianity. Jesus defeated death and overcame the grave. Early Christians were not concerned with "going to heaven", as Bishop N.T. Wright and others have pointed out, but eternal life, beginning in this world, not in otherwordliness.

 

[Der Alte]

...
Even infants and those under the age of accountability die and need to be ransomed from death.

Romans 4:15
(15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
(13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 

[Derf]

Romans 4:15
(15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
(13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

And yet death, which was the penalty for eating if the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is applied and was applied even to those who weren't under the law (your first citation in context):
Romans 5:14 KJV — Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

They had no law, yet they were subject to death, which is the wages of sin.

 

[Derf]

The notion death is good isn't consonant with Christianity. Jesus defeated death and overcame the grave. Early Christians were not concerned with "going to heaven", as Bishop N.T. Wright and others have pointed out, but eternal life, beginning in this world, not in otherwordliness.

Yes, I think this is extremely important.