What about those who die without ever hearing about Jesus?

[Sigurd]

I say as my link did, the bible is right not any christian, the authority is in the bible no human being.

Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."
Romans 3.4

umm... I said we should leave this discussion. As in, let's not discuss this further.. finito il lavoro .. capito??

Your forefathers is not saved regardless of hid deeds, he is saved based on his heart and his reaction to what has been given to him through his conscience and creation [read op please]. What of john 1 makes you think those that don't hear of Christ are automatically saved?.

no one is saved by works no one, weather they have heard of jesus or not.

Just making sure that we are on the same page here...
So this forefather of mine... Svein Magnusson.. nicknamed the anvil.. because he apparently drowned a longship and a crew by throwing an anvil at it.. will be saved.. because he was a loving father for his children and a good husband - yet merciless against his enemies. Deeds don't matter anyway as in works won't save you, neither will work damn you as long as your heart stay true. Yet.. he never heard of white-Christ as he died before the first Christians arrived with the gospel of the word.
This is according to your understanding of the Bible...

[total relism]

umm... I said we should leave this discussion. As in, let's not discuss this further.. finito il lavoro .. capito??


Just making sure that we are on the same page here...
So this forefather of mine... Svein Magnusson.. nicknamed the anvil.. because he apparently drowned a longship and a crew by throwing an anvil at it.. will be saved.. because he was a loving father for his children and a good husband - yet merciless against his enemies. Deeds don't matter anyway as in works won't save you, neither will work damn you as long as your heart stay true. Yet.. he never heard of white-Christ as he died before the first Christians arrived with the gospel of the word.
This is according to your understanding of the Bible...

I am ok with that sure.


Not at all I have no idea how your missing everything I have said.

Noone is saved by works, if they heard of Christ or not
no one is saved outside of Christ.
all are guilty and punished by god.
Those that have never heard of Christ, read op. If you are having trouble please tell me were. What specific part you dont get.

[Sigurd]

Noone is saved by works, if they heard of Christ or not
no one is saved outside of Christ.
all are guilty and punished by god.
Those that have never heard of Christ, read op. If you are having trouble please tell me were. What specific part you dont get.

I want you to give me a concrete example of your theological position on this.
I tried to make one for you.

I have read the OP but I think you make a few mistakes there... particularly that the Old Testament prophets and the house of Israel didn't know of Christ and such is comparable to the gentile nations of the earth. There is a significant difference in that they were taught of the coming of Christ. That was what the Law of Moses was all about. The preparation and the anticipation of the coming of the son of man. They knew of Christ and therefore have the sufficient knowledge to attain salvation based on the teachings given by Paul.
I want an example of a person not belonging to the house of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that were never taught the gospel.. your quote in the OP states that God is revealed through his creation... Now how is that possible? A god, yes... the ancients was quite superstitious - but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? more particularly the coming of the son of man? How is that self evident given the nature around us? Take away the OT and the NT... are you seriously suggesting that This god of Israel is revealed to us through his creation - the nature around us, the sky above and the lights filling it? I would propose that without the Bible, you have nothing... no evidence.
Hence those who never came into contact with the Bible --- how would they come to the knowledge of these things?

[InsaneApache]

Here endeth the first lesson. Amen.

[total relism]

I want you to give me a concrete example of your theological position on this.
I tried to make one for you.

I have read the OP but I think you make a few mistakes there... particularly that the Old Testament prophets and the house of Israel didn't know of Christ and such is comparable to the gentile nations of the earth. There is a significant difference in that they were taught of the coming of Christ. That was what the Law of Moses was all about. The preparation and the anticipation of the coming of the son of man. They knew of Christ and therefore have the sufficient knowledge to attain salvation based on the teachings given by Paul.
I want an example of a person not belonging to the house of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that were never taught the gospel.. your quote in the OP states that God is revealed through his creation... Now how is that possible? A god, yes... the ancients was quite superstitious - but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? more particularly the coming of the son of man? How is that self evident given the nature around us? Take away the OT and the NT... are you seriously suggesting that This god of Israel is revealed to us through his creation - the nature around us, the sky above and the lights filling it? I would propose that without the Bible, you have nothing... no evidence.
Hence those who never came into contact with the Bible --- how would they come to the knowledge of these things?

alot of questions in there, I do aploigize but could you just number and ask the questions.

1]
2] etc

I dont want to confuse your questions so for me could you please ask in list form. They sound like great questions.

[Sigurd]

alot of questions in there, I do aploigize but could you just number and ask the questions.

1]
2] etc

I dont want to confuse your questions so for me could you please ask in list form. They sound like great questions.

*sigh*

1. Give an example of a person that fits your doctrine about not having heard of Jesus.. He/She can't be an Israelite (under Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ancestry).

2. How can the Christian God be self-revelatory [sic] outside the Bible?

..yeah this is pretty much the boiled down version of my previous post.

[Rhyfelwyr]

*sigh*

1. Give an example of a person that fits your doctrine about not having heard of Jesus.. He/She can't be an Israelite (under Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ancestry).

2. How can the Christian God be self-revelatory [sic] outside the Bible?

..yeah this is pretty much the boiled down version of my previous post.

I know this post wasn't meant for me but if I may chip in...

1. I don't necessarily even agree with TR (not sure what he's saying). But purely in response to your question, what about Melchizidek (he was IIRC a Canaanite?) and those under his priesthood? Although I guess that would be another example of a particular revelation rather than more general natural revelation.

2. Well the person of Christ wouldn't be, but I guess if you argue that a perfect God (minus the particulars of Christianity) is self-evident, then forgiveness would be part of that God's nature and so sinners should have some sort of innate desire to look to that God for forgiveness.

[Sigurd]

I know this post wasn't meant for me but if I may chip in...

1. I don't necessarily even agree with TR (not sure what he's saying). But purely in response to your question, what about Melchizidek (he was IIRC a Canaanite?) and those under his priesthood? Although I guess that would be another example of a particular revelation rather than more general natural revelation.

2. Well the person of Christ wouldn't be, but I guess if you argue that a perfect God (minus the particulars of Christianity) is self-evident, then forgiveness would be part of that God's nature and so sinners should have some sort of innate desire to look to that God for forgiveness.

You are meddling
1.
I just want to make sure TR understands what he promoting. I don't know any other Christian denomination apart from Mormonism that teaches something similar to OP.
Could be he belongs to a fringe group aka Saved Mormons or other outbreaks from the original.

About Melchizedek... ok... same question but POST Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, right?). Melchizedek also had the religion of Adam didn't he, and was ordained to the same priesthood as that of Adam, Noah, Enoch. Obviously the saving ordinances were taught these men and their followers. Enoch even attained it while still living - with his entire city.
Let's focus on the general Northern European in the same time period.. or South African, Chinese, Aborigine, Polynesian or Native American? Someone not living in the general middle eastern areas - where some knowledge might have been spread.

2.
Minus the bible what have you? ... Find a story in the bible where god's people weren't taught by either prophets or angels before coming to a knowledge about their God.
It even states in the bible that this method existed - that previously they were taught by prophets, who got it from angels or God directly. (Hebr 1)
If these things were self evident.. why the need for prophets?

[Rhyfelwyr]

bout Melchizedek... ok... same question but POST Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, right?). Melchizedek also had the religion of Adam didn't he, and was ordained to the same priesthood as that of Adam, Noah, Enoch. Obviously the saving ordinances were taught these men and their followers. Enoch even attained it while still living - with his entire city.
Let's focus on the general Northern European in the same time period.. or South African, Chinese, Aborigine, Polynesian or Native American? Someone not living in the general middle eastern areas - where some knowledge might have been spread.

Minus the bible what have you? ... Find a story in the bible where god's people weren't taught by either prophets or angels before coming to a knowledge about their God.
It even states in the bible that this method existed - that previously they were taught by prophets, who got it from angels or God directly. (Hebr 1)
If these things were self evident.. why the need for prophets?

If we're debating what the Bible says here, I would point out Romans 1:20.

If you are questioning if the Bible must be wrong, I'll say a couple of things. Firstly, God's special revelation to the Israelites does not demonstrate that natural revelation is insufficient for salvation, it was given to them because God has a special purpose for Israel as a nation.

Secondly, it could be argued that since all the peoples of the world can trace their lineage back to Adam just as Melchizedek could, that all the various world religions still contain some aspect of divine or special revelation, in that they are simply corrupted forms of the original.

And finally, salvation is ultimately a personal conviction, rather than a specific belief system. If we can agree that a perfect God is naturally revealed to mankind, then people would look to him for forgiveness without hearing the Gospel. They might simply express this through animal sacrifice or whatever, but these symbolic things are all that most of the OT saints had anyway.

btw, whenever I try to edit what I've typed, whenever I type a character it deletes the one after it. It only started this mid-post. How do I stop it?!

[Kralizec]

Press "insert".

[Sigurd]

If we're debating what the Bible says here, I would point out Romans 1:20.

If you are questioning if the Bible must be wrong, I'll say a couple of things. Firstly, God's special revelation to the Israelites does not demonstrate that natural revelation is insufficient for salvation, it was given to them because God has a special purpose for Israel as a nation.

Secondly, it could be argued that since all the peoples of the world can trace their lineage back to Adam just as Melchizedek could, that all the various world religions still contain some aspect of divine or special revelation, in that they are simply corrupted forms of the original.

And finally, salvation is ultimately a personal conviction, rather than a specific belief system. If we can agree that a perfect God is naturally revealed to mankind, then people would look to him for forgiveness without hearing the Gospel. They might simply express this through animal sacrifice or whatever, but these symbolic things are all that most of the OT saints had anyway.

btw, whenever I try to edit what I've typed, whenever I type a character it deletes the one after it. It only started this mid-post. How do I stop it?!

It still begs the question... every scripture is taken out of context in this particular matter. Why preach the gospel if it is self evident? Paul speaks about preaching the gospel just moments before-- to the just so that they might receive salvation. Then he proceeds, if we do not consider the context, that the unjust will be damned because they didn't follow the self-evident unpreached gospel of God that is embedded in his creation. How foolish for the unjust not to take notice... it is there in plain sight... Art thou blind??? Now... let me preach the gospel to you..dear friends that salvation will be available to you...

Me thinks you are not connecting the dots here. Clearly he is speaking of those who HAS been taught by Paul and other preachers and then turned away from it despite the "evidence" backing up the preached gospel.
None of these scriptures are talking about those who never was brought the message...

The all religions come from a common source statement... is interesting in it self should we pursue it. Is Odinn's sacrifice as he was "hung" on a tree a salvatory principle for the Norse? IF they truly believed it? that Odinn wounded himself with a spear as a sacrifice to himself to gain wisdom...

I am still waiting on a concrete example of this concept... that doesn't involve the gospel being taught by propehets, apostles, angels and the like...

[HoreTore]

Bah, Sigurd. No need to bring Odin into all of this, you know just as well as I do that the vikings weren't very religious, in our modern sense of the word. Norse mythlogy was just a collection of tall tales, various bonding rituals and the habit of blaming it on spirits whenevr something went wrong or you were spooked in the dark. The reason seems obvious - the vikings had no cities(only market places like Kaupang) and lived on individual farms. It's hard to get organized when you only have your extended family to organize...

And this continues to this day - do you remember that story about those hillbillies living on a remote island in the west(no surprises there!) who were damned sure they had "little helpers"? It ended in a social media frenzy where every weirdo in the country came out to tell the world of their contact with various variants of "nisser"... Sometimes I wondr if an oppressive theocracy with an authoritarian religion would be preferable to weirdos getting felt up by old pervs from Snåsa.

[Papewaio]

Sorry those oppressive theocracy have more then their fair share of old pervs.

You can change the religion, you can't change the attraction of religion as an easy access for perverts.

[total relism]

*sigh*

1. Give an example of a person that fits your doctrine about not having heard of Jesus.. He/She can't be an Israelite (under Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ancestry).

2. How can the Christian God be self-revelatory [sic] outside the Bible?

..yeah this is pretty much the boiled down version of my previous post.

thanks for boiling it down, hey how do they make holy water?... they boil the hell out of it. Sorry I think I am funny sometimes.

I dont see what is not answered of your questions in OP.

Well I disagree with your assumptions, you seem to think that knowledge is still needed for salvation, if that were the case than wouldn't all who have knowledge of bible be saved?. This is clearly not true according to the bible.

1] There are many that have not heard of jesus all over the bible. i am guessing you mean that have been saved and never heard of jesus. I would say only god knows, but god says there are many. Maybe balaam or ruth may be what your looking for or the Ninevites in jonah?? I am not 100% sure what your asking for. But As the book of romans says there will be those saved and that those that have not heard of jesus will be judged different than those that have. God says there will be those that understand him without ever hearing the bible message.

For what they were not told, they will see,
and what they have not heard, they will understand. [/B]
Isiah 52.15


think of this Isaiah passage, this directly compares gentiles with the nation of isreal.

“]I was sought by those who did not ask for Me;
I was found by those who did not seek Me. [/B]
I said, ‘Here I am, here I am,’
To a nation that was not called by My name.
Isaiah 65.1


but many that hear about god will not accept him

I spread out My hands all day long
### to a rebellious people
### who walk in the wrong path,
### following their own thoughts
Isiah 65.2

Than there parable in matt etc.

2] Through creation and the human consiuncous that he created [op] This does not mean perfect knowledge of the bible or biblical theology..

[Sigurd]

I see none of my questions answered...
And I would infact contend that if you should consider the entirety of the Bible, all knew of Christ in it. Maybe not the actual name Christ which is the Greek form, but the comparative Messiah, the anointed one, the son of God.
You keep quoting Isaiah... who certainly appears to have an intimate knowledge of these things.. 800 BC. Would we assume that he taught the people about it? What about all the other prophets from Adam until Isaiah?

My simple question was... who... not mentioned in the Bible would be affected by the proposition in OP? What are the requirements for them to attain salvation? Paul said in Romans 1 that the taught gospel is salvatory. It needs to be taught... not discerned from rivers, trees and mountains.

Who in Norway 700 AD, would this work for?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For the record... I know what you are saying tr.. but I think you should take a step back and consider how it fits together with what the NT says about salvatory principles. The evangelic denominations seem to put blinkers on when using a small narrow part of the Bible in their lazy approach to this. Say the name.. that's it and you are saved.

An acquaintance of mine paraphrased a poem about knowing Jesus when I discussed Matt 7 with him. The gist of it was this...

A certain man was interviewing candidates.. And he asked them the same question: What do you know of the Christ? And they all told him in detail about Christ's saving grace, his gospel and his example for mankind. but he asked them again: What do you know of the Christ? And they proceeded to explain about the beatitudes taught at mount olives, the crucifixion, the calling of the twelve apostles, the institution of the last supper. He asked them again No, what do you know of the Christ. They finalized with the second coming of him who would vanquish the enemies of God, the heralding of the judgement and the salvation of the elect. He sent them away... The last candidate came in and before the man could ask him the question, the candidate fell to his knees uttering: My Lord, my God.

[total relism]

I see none of my questions answered...
And I would infact contend that if you should consider the entirety of the Bible, all knew of Christ in it. Maybe not the actual name Christ which is the Greek form, but the comparative Messiah, the anointed one, the son of God.
You keep quoting Isaiah... who certainly appears to have an intimate knowledge of these things.. 800 BC. Would we assume that he taught the people about it? What about all the other prophets from Adam until Isaiah?

My simple question was... who... not mentioned in the Bible would be affected by the proposition in OP? What are the requirements for them to attain salvation? Paul said in Romans 1 that the taught gospel is salvatory. It needs to be taught... not discerned from rivers, trees and mountains.

Who in Norway 700 AD, would this work for?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For the record... I know what you are saying tr.. but I think you should take a step back and consider how it fits together with what the NT says about salvatory principles. The evangelic denominations seem to put blinkers on when using a small narrow part of the Bible in their lazy approach to this. Say the name.. that's it and you are saved.

An acquaintance of mine paraphrased a poem about knowing Jesus when I discussed Matt 7 with him. The gist of it was this...

A certain man was interviewing candidates.. And he asked them the same question: What do you know of the Christ? And they all told him in detail about Christ's saving grace, his gospel and his example for mankind. but he asked them again: What do you know of the Christ? And they proceeded to explain about the beatitudes taught at mount olives, the crucifixion, the calling of the twelve apostles, the institution of the last supper. He asked them again No, what do you know of the Christ. They finalized with the second coming of him who would vanquish the enemies of God, the heralding of the judgement and the salvation of the elect. He sent them away... The last candidate came in and before the man could ask him the question, the candidate fell to his knees uttering: My Lord, my God.

I fully understand what your saying, I am not saying those in ot knew nothing of bible/jesus, many did many did not. They certainly did not have 100% knowledge of him. Peter [I think] says they did not have perfect knowledge, no one did untill jesus was reveled. I am not saying Isiah/ot isreal were not looking forward to christ or a savior. My thread is on those with no knowledge at all of bible ot/nt.


I would say my OP applies to all who have never heard anything of bible ot/nt. If paul in romans 1 said the gospel needs to be taught, I am ok with that 100% that in noway contradicts my op. Paul himself in romans is were this question is mostly answered from op. Paul both said the gospel had been taught to all the earth in 62 ad, and said how important it was to get out the word of the gospel to all later. Read OP please.



I would say all in norway in 700 ad


amen to spoiler part very nice, but I guess the point I am trying to make is the bible not only from paul in romans but ot passages and parable in matt, make a distinction from those who have heard the gospel and how they are judged,with those who have never heard.