On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[tackattack]

---

Your error was in that "clearly is a sociopathic way of thinking, but it's the most logically consistent answer to the question" I grant that from an exlucive-ist perspective it would seem that way.

You could argue the sociopathic bit was just my opinion (and even say that it was rude of me to say that), but I have no idea how that bit is considered an error nevertheless. And if you're referring to the logically consistent bit, I'm still not sure where I went wrong (after reading your whole last post). Christians have been exclusivist more often than inclusivist AFAIK, and many many Christians have held to the interpretation I'm currently defending because books like Romans and John provide good evidence for such interpretation.

This is not to say that you can't find a verse anywhere in the Bible that supports inclusivism, but if we consider the New Testament overall, an exclusivist interpretation makes a lot more sense than an inclusivist one. With inclusivism, you pretty much have to make more assumptions that are not based in the Bible itself, but based in the modern notion of such things as fairness and justice.

If the only way to be saved from Hell is from hearing and knowing about Jesus then the simplest course would be just to not tell anyone and hope they're judged by being good.

Uh, I'm not sure how you reasoned that out. If the only way to be saved is to hear the Gospel to thereby accept the gift of salvation through faith, and especially because one cannot be saved by being good enough, then Christians should hope to preach the Gospel to every person the planet.

On the contrary, it is with inclusivism that you won't have to worry about preaching the Gospel to everyone, not exclusivism.

I was outlining why, from my inclucive-ist perspective it wasn't sociopathic, but it was promoting an easier way to salvation.

I agree that wouldn't be sociopathic, but the question is how supportable this is by passages in the Bible itself, especially the New Testament.

Where you have it wrong again is in Romans
If "Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin"
and 2 "no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law"
and 3 "Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law ... show the work of the Law written in their hearts"

We have Law working to point out our sinful natures. You don't need religion to tell you you're wicked or to be wicked. What Romans points out mainly is that it does take religion to show you that what you consider good, isn't good compared to God. I can be perfectly nice and friendly and charitable, but be doing it all for selfish reasons, therefore not objectively good. The law (on stones or in hearts) is a tool to point out our repeated willful disobedience to our Heavenly Father. You're absolutely correct in that we can do nothing of our own to be saved. That's why the source is independent of our actions. Jesus did die for all and it's by His power we are saved. You can stand before God's judgment, on your own or covered by Jesus' sacrifice.

So where was the wrong in my POV exactly? Don't you see that what you're saying here points to exclusivism as much as you think it does to inclusivism?

---

If you would like to look at the New testament as a whole. You are ignoring almost every overarching theme of Jesus and His apostles seeking to redefine how the current regime used God's law to condemn their own people, and Christians sought to spread the message outside the devout, Sadducee, Pharisees and Levites. It was both to the common Jews, and then to the gentiles unto the ends of the world.

If you are defining exclucivist/inclucivist views in that only followers of Christ can get to Heaven, that is a different story. If you're defining exclucivist/inclucivist as that God seeks all to be reconciled to Heaven, and we're discussing salvation without hearing about the Bible that is what I'm talking about. If we're moving the goalposts a little by confusing definitions then let's just take a moment to be clear, but I'll address both definitions.


I'll be more specific with my highlights to express the inclucivist view I was talking about and if you still feel it is more exclucivist, please point out how.
"Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin"
"no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law"
"Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law ... show the work of the Law written in their hearts"

If we are moving the definitions to who gets to heaven. John 14:6 is a notoriously difficult verse for believers where Jesus says, "no one can come to the Father except through me”. A lot of exlucisivists assume this to mean "through faith in me". A lot of inclucivists claim no Faith is necessary because it is "through my saving work". To be clear on this definition I practice restrictivism (exclusivism) meaning that a positive response to general revelation is not enough to accept the gift of salvation from Christ in that one needs a conscious decision to acknowledge/accept Christ as your savior. However, Christ's sacrifice is powered by itself, and not our actions, so those unable to know or decide (mentally handicapped, babies, unreached aboriginals, etc.) do not have "the Law" and show the work written on their hearts.

In the case of adults who have not heard of Jesus (as is the case in the news recently), they may have good lives, laws and their own beliefs and Gods, but it is evidenced by that murder is a part of their society. Therefore, from my perspective and judginess, as we gain the ability to reason more of our sinful (topic of original sin) nature affects our decisions/society and can prevent us from being accepted by Heaven, because we chose our own path, not Jesus' or the one written on our heart. These usually reflect in the typical cardinal sin archetypes and are visible in almost every societal construct I can think of.

So to sum up quickly because this is far longer than I wanted.
You need to hear>accept Christ as your savior, or turn against your natural sinful nature instinctively (without knowing of Christ) to become saved.