Salvation apart from Christ?

[Richard Romano]

This is an open question to all Christians.

How is someone saved apart from Christ? In other words, if someone lived in the time of Buddha, a place removed geographically from Paestine/Jerusalem; how would they come to saving knowledge in Christ?

Certainly, there are biblical points of view on this subject which are acceptable...such as God being a God of justice and perfection, with the ability to communicate truth to people in these circumstances.

Please, let's try to arrive at an acceptable view that will benefit all Christians who are faced with this type of question from those we are trying to evangelize. Often, many want to know where their ancestors since God apparently did not give them the Gospel.

God's blessings to you,

Richard Romano.

[GrayPilgrim]

Great question Richard. I think this would work better in the Liberal Arts Forum, and it owuld allow you more control of hte thread ot ensure that it stays on topic, so I am transferring it.

GP

[joelkaki]

There is no possibility of salvation apart from Christ. I see no indication that God "communicates" with certain people who haven't heard the gospel in order that they can be saved. All men are sinners against God--He owes them nothing. If they go to Hell, it is a result of their sin, so God is still just.


Joel

[Richard Romano]

03-09-2003 @ 12:44 PM
joelkaki:

There is no possibility of salvation apart from Christ. I see no indication that God "communicates" with certain people who haven't heard the gospel in order that they can be saved. All men are sinners against God--He owes them nothing. If they go to Hell, it is a result of their sin, so God is still just.

Of course God owes us nothing, yet He did send His Only Son, who went to great pains to give us a chance to know Him and be redeemed. The Bible makes it quite that God is going to make sure all have a chance to either accept Christ or reject Him.

There is the biblical basis that people before Christ looked forward to a redemption...regardless if they knew about Christ or not. They would in turn live with a moral awareness and reverence for God in creation, conscience, and, ultimately, Christ...for they'll fall at His feet and worship Him knowing He is the one to give them what they have desired.

Those who live after Christ, look back to His gift and sacrifice. We have an extra revelation from God, in that we know about Christ and His redeeming work.

God does not wish that any go to hell...I am concerned that your post does give rise to the implication that God is not the God of love Jesus portrayed Him to be. Of course He is righteous and cannot tolerate wrong...but He has granted a time of grace that He extends to all while we are alive.

God bless...your replies will be welcomed.

Richard.

Joel

[themuzicman]

Paul tells us in Romans 2 that those who do not have The Law become a law unto themselves when they do what is required by the law, and their consciences alternately defend and condemn them, which is the acknowledgement of sin. And, as we all know, he wages of sin is death.

Michael

[joelkaki]

Yes, God is a God of love, but that isn't his only attribute, nor his foremost attribute. God's attributes all harmonize together. Not all people have heard of Christ, and if they didn't hear and believe, then they go to Hell because of their sins. (Rom 3:23;6:23) God is just, and those who go to Hell get their just punishment.

Joel

[Freak]

No, salvation is not attainable apart from Christ.

The Holy Scriptures put it this way:

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Pretty clear. In fact our Lord and Savior made it clear also:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

There is no salvation apart from Christ.

People often ask me on my world-wide radio broadcast about those remote tribes that have never heard of the Gospel. Well, Paul tells us:


The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Essentially man is without excuse because of God's general revelation (Romans 1). Even those in remote areas of the earth can understand God's power. If someone responds to the general revelation (creation) God then reveals man's need of this great God via his conscience (see Romans 2). This is progessive revelation. If the individual responds then God reveals His Son-Jesus to the individual (see Romans 3).

One needs to remember God can reveal His Som in a multitude of ways-including dreams, visions, etc....

[Richard Romano]

Dear Joelkaki,

I didn't mean to imply that salvation apart from Christ was possible. I was attempting to understand how someone who has never heard about Christ or the law has the possibility of salvation.

I also made it clear that God has a way of communicating with people who diligently seek after Him. God is not carpricious and in "hiding," He is willing to reveal Himself to those who respond to His creation, or the relief from the inherrent depravity within us all, in other words, our conscience.

Of course God is also just and righteous and has every right to judge sinners who have rejected the light that they have been given. But keep in mind that this is an age of Gracee; we need to be careful how we communicate such truths since we don't want to add to the offence that the Gospel already is.

Blessings,

Richard.

[ACFaith.Com]

I wrote a paper discussing this issue (http://www.acfaith.com/widerhope.html)

Vinnie

[Richard Romano]

Dear Vinnie,

Aren't you the one who recently debated J.P Holding?

Thanks for the link, I'll read your essay and respond appropriately.

best,

Richard.

[ACFaith.Com]

I critiqued something he wrote (and responses followed) but no, you must have the wrong guy. We've never debated.

Vinnie

[Richard Romano]

03-14-2003 @ 03:01 AM
ACFaith.Com:

I critiqued something he wrote (and responses followed) but no, you must have the wrong guy. We've never debated.

Vinnie

Hello Vinnie, yes, I recall that you "critiqued" something he wrote...I did read that piece myself.

Tell me, what exactly is your view of Christianity? Is it an exclusive faith, or are you trying to reinforce liberalism?

I am going to read your article later this evening and post a response.

best,

Richard

[ACFaith.Com]

Tell me, what exactly is your view of Christianity? Is it an exclusive faith, or are you trying to reinforce liberalism?

Define liberalism.

Vinnie

[Xmansmommy]

Great topic here, so let's try to keep the discussion on topic. Thanks guys. :xmm:

[Richard Romano]

Today @ 01:33 AM
ACFaith.Com:

Define liberalism.

Vinnie

I didn' t know that there was a definition per se...it is more of a mindset than anything. Exactly what do you think liberalism means?

When I use the term I am referring specifically to the movement to make all truth claims relative so as to appear respectful to other expressions of faith. On the periphery, it appears to promote an attitude of mutual respect amongst faiths, but in the end it creates a false foundation for respect for it refuses to acknowledge the real differences, mostly irreconcilable, amongst them...such as salvation in Christ alone, which I hold to.

I hope the moderator understands that liberalism such as this attacks the very essence of truth so that a claim to salvation apart from Christ can be made by those who adhere to such an ideology.

At any rate, I still haven't been able to finish reading your article Vinnie, but I will be attempting to do that later today and post a reply. I am a graduate student, so my studies have been keeping me occupied.

blessings,

Richard.

[Richard Romano]

03-13-2003 @ 01:14 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=33143#post33143)
ACFaith.Com:

I wrote a paper discussing this issue (http://www.acfaith.com/widerhope.html)

Vinnie

Dear Vinnie,

It should first be said that in your article, "Non-Christians and Jesus' Sacrificial Death," you bring up 5 objections and set them up as a platform from which to propose a new "wider hope" theory. You never adequately deal with the issues raised, and use begged questions to make it appear as if you have solved the problem. You obviously don't believe in biblical inerrancy, so the bible, perhaps, is a document that is merely a collection of stories and nothing more. I wish to deal with the 5 objections you raised and provide a biblical response, something that you did not do. There is also a significant problem with what you have argued; it seems that the method of salvation is unacceptable to you because you don't like it! Could it be that you don't like the way the bible portrays people as sinners in need of a Saviour? This ultimately boils down to the scriptures and how authoritative they are. There is ample evidence, internal and external, that they are authoritative and helpful for all aspects of spiritual life (2 Tim. 3:16).


[1] It means that awareness of historical events or intellectual knowledge plays a larger part in salvation than is warranted. This means that anyone who has never heard the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be saved. Those who, through no fault of their own, were not exposed to the "good news" shall suffer eternal separation from God because they were, unfortunately, born in the wrong place. This takes a lot of the emphasis off of where it belongs: a persons heart, and puts more of it where it does not belong: on a person's mind.

>>The problem with this objection is that it places too much emphasis on emotions, and essentially questions the fairness of God. If God is God, Creator of all things, He has the right to do what He wills with what He has created. "Placing the emphasis" on a person's heart is really a smoke screen that calls into question justice and the arbiter of justice Himself. This is not to say that the heart has no place in the scheme of salvation--it is the place that ultimately condemns us since we choose to do evil over good--but it is a mistake to make this an emotional argument because it tends to reduce the seriousness of the issue, as well as make it difficult to look at the issue properly. The real question is this: who is deserving of salvation? The clear answer is: NO ONE. We are saved by God's grace alone, through faith in Jesus Christ. We are justly and condignly condemned when we don't respond to the light that God has given, i.e., the light of conscience, the light of creation, and the light of Christ (Romans 1-3).

The problem is not that we don't have enough light, it is because humans prefer darkness rather than light...that is, they prefer to make a God out of their own making--a God that preferably does not "mind" their sins as long as they try hard to not repeat them. A God such as this cannot be Holy, but fallible and easily manipulated by the whims of human beings. Jesus made it clear that we should rather bow to His supreme revelation. If people of other faiths find the cross reprehensible, they, in effect, corroborate scripture on the issue of salvation in Christ alone (1 Cor. 1:18).

[2] Those who are mentally handicapped and lack faith in Jesus are automatically sentenced to eternal condemnation. Some of them may not have the ability to make the conscious choice and will be sentenced due to no fault of their own.

>>This again calls into question the justice of God. What you are doing here is trying to do God's work for Him, which is tantamount to blasphemy. You are essentially saying that you can do a better job then He can! God is just, and He will not judge those who didn't have enough light. But the Bible makes it clear that all have sufficient light whereby all will have the chance to either respond to the light, and hence be given more light, or reject the light...Jesus made this point clear in Luke 8:18. Ultimately, human answers to this objection will fall short, for only God can judge and we must leave this to Him; He is infinitely just, and infinitely righteous, and we can rest assured that He'll make a just judgement. It should also be said that the Bible does teach that there are degrees of punishment in hell, as well as degrees of reward in heaven. So those who don't respond to God because there may not have been enough light will fare better than one who had more light (Luke 12:47). Again, the final judgement belongs to the province of God alone, and we must trust Him to make the right judgement...and He will.

[3] Those of other faiths who profess love for God are hell-bound. This is a big problem today as more and more people are increasingly becoming aware of religious pluralism. Many people of different faiths see the Christian claims about Jesus as "problematic" on an intellectual level. Am I to believe that a pious Jewish woman who prays and loves God with all her heart, mind and soul is going to spend her eternity separated from God and all that is good because she grew up in a different religious tradition and could not accept certain "problematic" statements as factually true? Should I further believe without ANY good evidence that she has intellectual difficulties with Christian doctrine because she is evil and that it is her wickedness which suppresses the truth? A friend of mine described this situation well:

>>You are again wearing your heart on your sleeve, so to speak. The idea of pluralism doesn't hold water; I already made clear to you from a previous post that liberalism of this sort doesn't work for it fails to acknowledge the very real irreconcilable differences that exist between faiths. For example, the Muslims believe Jesus didn't die, while the Bible teaches that Jesus did. One is truth, the other is error! This alone illustrates the essence of truth, something which pluralism denies, or more correctly, ignores.

This objection also assumes the innocence of a person who may have not heard...but the Bible makes it clear that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). According to what the Bible teaches, people who respond to the light they have been given (through conscience, creation, and perhaps other elements in their own religion) God will see to it that they are given more light, i.e., Christ. If they truly love God, they will respond to His method and message of salvation, viz. the Gospel.

"How would you like it if I came up to you and said "You know, I don't think you truly know what loving your wife is really all about. I however, through the depth of my love and faith do know how to love your wife properly. I'd like you invite you to learn to love your wife with all the depth and passion that I have."
It is a slap in the face to tell those devoted and sincere adherents of other religious faiths that they do not love God or that they do not accept the factuality of Christian dogma because they are evil. Furthermore, true love creates solidarity! So if they love God then there is absolutely no reason for them to be excluded from his kingdom!

>>This is a nice "just so" story meant to demonstrate that the "wider hope" theory is actually valid. But, it essentially creates more problems than it tries to solve. All it does is "tug at the heart," like J.P Holding likes to say. This is also an enormous straw man that caricatures Christianity worse than those who you claim keep people away from hearing/accepting the Gospel by their actions etc. With this logic, Jesus Himself doesn't know what He's talking about when He commissioned His disciples to preach the Gospel...He is also equally delusional when He claims to be the only way! If they love God, then they will respond to the Gospel when it is presented to them. God is not capricious, He will grant more light as they respond to the general light they have already been given. That said, the fact that Jesus Christ is the supreme revelation of God is clear in history itself...He stands head and shoulders above Buddha, Mohammed, and Krishna...He alone rose from the grave, forgave sins, and began a movement that put an end to the dominance of pagan consciousness in the world, i.e., the Roman Empire. [1] Ultimately, we have to trust what the Bible says--it appears as if you don't trust it--and God has made it clear that He "loves those who love [Him] and those who diligently seek [Him] will find [Him]." We simply cannot take every single anecdote and try to explain it away, we must trust what God has already said. Sadly, when we don't trust the Bible, then we have to resort to all kinds of eisegesis to make our points.

[4] Moses and other prophets, including the one allegedly taken up to heaven in a whirlwind cannot be saved or enter God's kingdom in the afterlife. Jesus' death occurred in history. It was an event in space and time. It seems that those who lived before the incarnation had no explicit way of knowing historical information about this event which did not yet occur. Are all these people condemned to hell through no fault of their own?

>>This is the sad consequence of improper biblical interpretation. You do refer to some "explanations," but make them appear to be inadequate in some way. All the OT blood sacrifices looked forward to Jesus Christ, the Messiah. Every single institution that Israel observed were symbols that lacked substance, and that substance culminates in Jesus's appearance in history. Most Bible commentaries refer to preincarnate appearances of Christ, which Moses and Elijah both experienced. They knew that a Messiah would come and fulfill all that God had promised through Abraham. It doesn't take a theologian to see the symbol behind Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac, "his only son." The substance of this symbol was realized in Christ. It is so clear that no one with an open mind could possibly miss it.

[5] It means that those infants who die at birth, all those aborted babies, and those children who never reach the "age of accountability" and are able to make an informed decision will all spend eternity in darkness through no fault of their own.

>>We have hints in the Bible that children go directly in the presence of God. David's child who died at birth is one example (2 Samuel 12:23). I also stated earlier that, from a biblical point of view, all have sinned, so none of us are innocent from an ontological point of view. Babies are innocent in the sense of not being able to experience the world and make their own decisions, as well as possess the ability to defend themselves (which is what makes abortion so abhorrent). Remember, we are not talking about the value of life here, since God showed how much He valued it by sending Jesus to die for us while we were still sinners! The point is that God has provided all we need to be saved...all we need to do is respond to His love and salvation in Christ.

Almost no Christian theologian today does in fact hold that explicit faith in Jesus in this life is necessary for salvation. To begin, there are the Old Testament believers mentioned already; it would appear that saving faith for them might involve some anticipation that God would atone for sin in some way--perhaps even a hope that God would act decisively in history in some way--but one could not claim that it was necessary for such people to believe in the actual story of Jesus.

>>What theologians are you talking about here? The point is that they responded to God by looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, predicted for centuries. Moses knew about this, so did Elijah...the transfiguration scene is a hint that they pre-figured the coming of Christ long before He came onto the scene. In other words, they functioned as incipient "messiahs," pointing towards a day when the true Messiah would come. Deuteronomy 34:10-12 makes it clear what a greater person than Moses would have to be like. Moses' character sets up the high standard the people were to expect when awaiting the Messiah's coming.

It is a fatal error to use emotion laden arguments as a basis from which to criticize the biblical view of salvation. J.P Holding has already demonstrated the problem of using this as a platform...it leads to all kinds of oversimplifications, begged questions, and special pleadings.

There isn't anything wrong with the way God has provided salvation...for what is "foolishness" to the lost, is saving hope to those who are saved. And herein lies the problem: you don't like the way God has provided salvation, so you are attempting to propose a new way without any scriptural guidelines...instead of bowing to what scripture has already said you wish to eschew an interpretation devoid of any biblical authority. What you end up with is an enormous straw man argument which does not adequately deal with issues of how we are saved and why.

regards,

Richard Romano.

(1) M. Dale Davis, "Civilizations in History." 2nd ed.
[This college level text gives a basic overview of the Roman Empire and the incredible influence that Christianity had within its walls. It is written from a secular standpoint, so that accusations of Christian fundamentalism are not possible]

[malacon]

Hey Richard,
You talked alot about the people responding the the light that recieve. Is there just one correct response to this or are there different levels of response like there are light? Also you left out the fact that God is infinitely Merciful.
Craig

[Richard Romano]

03-24-2003 @ 01:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42932#post42932)
malacon:

Hey Richard,
You talked alot about the people responding the the light that recieve. Is there just one correct response to this or are there different levels of response like there are light? Also you left out the fact that God is infinitely Merciful.
Craig

Hello Craig, thanks for your comments. Please read carefully...I did mention that God is merciful and just...in the section where I deal with children who die at birth etc.

best,

Richard.

[Freak]

Acts 4:12 & John 14:6 are rather clear.

[Richard Romano]

03-29-2003 @ 11:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47704#post47704)
Freak:

Acts 4:12 & John 14:6 are rather clear.

Hello Craig, please excuse my late, late reply...I have been quite busy with things as of late. I am a graduate student so I don't have the luxury of coming on here as much as I would like.

Please rephrase your previous question. You asked if there are several responses to the "light." If I understand your question correctly, the clear answer then is yes and no. The the Bible clearly teaches that light comes to us through creation, conscience, and ultimately, through Christ. Obviously, some elements of other religions contain truths that are consistent with biblical teaching...this then can be a way of coming closer to the light of Christ. The problem with this is that many who do belong to other religions become satisfied with the soteriological framework of that said religion, and hence can be further blinded from ever receiving Christ. So, in essence, we are only saved by Christ alone, and nothing else. In the Old Testament the people were saved by looking forward to the cross, the people coming after are saved by looking back to the cross.

Please elaborate further if this is not sufficient for you. God bless you Craig.

best,

Richard.

[John Reece]

Richard Romano:

How is someone saved apart from Christ? In other words, if someone lived in the time of Buddha, a place removed geographically from Palestine/Jerusalem; how would they come to saving knowledge in Christ?

A very good and interesting question.

We Christians can be rather presumptuous in declaring dogmatically what God can and can't do, in terms of our interpretations of scripture.

All that comes to my mind, when I read the question, is a memory of an anecdote from the life of Watchman Nee, the great Chinese Christian, who was converted to Christ (by a female missionary to China) and became a very fruitful native evangelist and teacher throughout China in the first half of the 20th century.

I read the account circa 1962, so please allow for the imperfection of an old man’s memory.

As I recall it, Watchman Nee was witnessing in a remote area of China, to which the Gospel had never before reached. Upon hearing WN tell about Jesus Christ, an old man responded, with a dawning of recognition apparent in his countenance, with this: “Ah! I have known Him for many years, but I did not know His name.” Watchman Nee discerned the testimony of the old man to be genuine, and having read most of the writings of WN, I trust his discernment.

That is so like the God I worship: Far greater than comprehended by any man or woman, other than Jesus himself.

But that is not salvation apart from Christ...

[Richard Romano]

04-25-2003 @ 09:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78310#post78310)
John Reece:

Watchman Nee discerned the testimony of the old man to be genuine, and having read most of the writings of WN, I trust his discernment.

That is so like the God I worship: Far greater than comprehended by any man or woman, other than Jesus himself.

But that is not salvation apart from Christ...

Dear Mr. Reece,

I appreciate your reply. We rejoice whenever anyone comes to Christ. My only reserve about your post is trusting W. Nee. He was periodically teaching heretical doctrines, and came quite close to a heretical view of the Trinity. His successor, Witness Lee, expounded further on some of his aberrant doctrines and they have both taught, and defended, the idea of a localized church...that if you are not part of their church then you are not following Christ.

So, I would be careful in ascribing any merit to Mr. Nee since some of his teachings are not orthodox, but rather heterodox.

God's blessings to you Sir,

Richard.

[Richard Romano]

Dear John,

Here is an article that covers the basic details of the controversy in Nee's teachings.

http://www.watchman.org/cat95.htm#Local"

best,

Richard

[John Reece]

Thanks, Richard.

I have looked at the link. Quite a long list :smile: .

Blessings,

John