Inclusivist Heretics - William Lane Craig, Billy Graham, R. Schuller, Joel Osteen

[Zipperhead]

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG:

"Granted that it is neither unloving nor unjust of God to create a world in which some people freely reject Him forever, what about the fate of those who have never heard about Christ? How can God condemn people who through no fault of their own never had the opportunity to receive Christ as their Savior? A person's salvation or damnation thus appears to be the result of historical and geographical accident, which is incompatible with an all-loving God.

This objection is, however, fallacious, because it assumes that those who have never heard about Christ are judged on the same basis as those who have. But the Bible says that the unreached will be judged on a quite different basis than those who have heard the gospel. God will judge the unreached on the basis of their response to His self-revelation in nature and conscience. The Bible says that from the created order alone, all persons can know that a Creator God exists and that God has implanted His moral law in the hearts of all persons so that they are held morally accountable to God (Rom. 1.20; 2.14-15). The Bible promises salvation to anyone who responds affirmatively to this self-revelation of God (Rom. 2.7).

Now this does not mean that they can be saved apart from Christ. Rather it means that the benefits of Christ's sacrifice can be applied to them without their conscious knowledge of Christ. They would be like people in the Old Testament before Jesus came who had no conscious knowledge of Christ but who were saved on the basis of his sacrifice through their response to the information that God had revealed to them. And, thus, salvation is truly available to all persons at all times. It all depends upon our free response."

Source: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-bradley1.html

BILLY GRAHAM AND ROBERT SCHULLER:

Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?

Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer - you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for his name. And that's what God is doing today - he's calling people out of the world for his name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved and that they're going to be with us in heaven.

Schuller: What, what I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?

Graham: Yes it is, because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.

Schuller: I'm so thrilled to hear you say this. There's a wideness in God's mercy.

Graham: There is. There definitely is.

Source: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/heterodoxy52.htm

JOEL OSTEEN AND LARRY KING:

KING: Because we've had ministers on who said, your record don't count. You either believe in Christ or you don't. If you believe in Christ, you are, you are going to heaven. And if you don't no matter what you've done in your life, you ain't.

OSTEEN: Yeah, I don't know. There's probably a balance between. I believe you have to know Christ. But I think that if you know Christ, if you're a believer in God, you're going to have some good works. I think it's a cop-out to say I'm a Christian but I don't ever do anything ...

KING: What if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?

OSTEEN: You know, I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't go to heaven. I don't know ...

KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're wrong, aren't they?

OSTEEN: Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong. I believe here's what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God with judge a person's heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don't know all about their religion. But I know they love God. And I don't know. I've seen their sincerity. So I don't know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.

CALLER: Hello, Larry. You're the best, and thank you, Joe -- Joel -- for your positive messages and your book. I'm wondering, though, why you side-stepped Larry's earlier question about how we get to heaven? The bible clearly tells us that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light and the only way to the father is through him. That's not really a message of condemnation but of truth.

OSTEEN: Yes, I would agree with her. I believe that...

KING: So then a Jew is not going to heaven?

OSTEEN: No. Here's my thing, Larry, is I can't judge somebody's heart. You know? Only god can look at somebody's heart, and so -- I don't know. To me, it's not my business to say, you know, this one is or this one isn't. I just say, here's what the bible teaches and I'm going to put my faith in Christ. And I just I think it's wrong when you go around saying, you're saying you're not going, you're not going, you're not going, because it's not exactly my way. I'm just...

KING: But you believe your way.

OSTEEN: I believe my way. I believe my way with all my heart.

KING: But for someone who doesn't share it is wrong, isn't he?

OSTEEN: Well, yes. Well, I don't know if I look at it like that. I would present my way, but I'm just going to let god be the judge of that. I don't know. I don't know.

KING: So you make no judgment on anyone?

OSTEEN: No. But I...

KING: What about atheists?

OSTEEN: You know what, I'm going to let someone -- I'm going to let god be the judge of who goes to heaven and hell. I just -- again, I present the truth, and I say it every week. You know, I believe it's a relationship with Jesus. But you know what? I'm not going to go around telling everybody else if they don't want to believe that that's going to be their choice. God's got to look at your own heart. God's got to look at your heart, and only god knows that.

KING: You believe there's a place called heaven?

OSTEEN: I believe there is. Yes. You know, you've had a lot of the near-death experiences and things like that. Some of that is very, to me, not that you need that as proof, but it shows you these little kids seeing the angels and things like that.

Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/03/lkl.01.html

[Xavier]

[...] Source: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/heterodoxy52.htm[...]

More fun I think would be had in starting a thread entitled the Exclusivist Heretics and using this as example A...

Cheers,
Xavier

[8320john]

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG:

"Granted that it is neither unloving nor unjust of God to create a world in which some people freely reject Him forever, what about the fate of those who have never heard about Christ? How can God condemn people who through no fault of their own never had the opportunity to receive Christ as their Savior? A person's salvation or damnation thus appears to be the result of historical and geographical accident, which is incompatible with an all-loving God.

This objection is, however, fallacious, because it assumes that those who have never heard about Christ are judged on the same basis as those who have. But the Bible says that the unreached will be judged on a quite different basis than those who have heard the gospel. God will judge the unreached on the basis of their response to His self-revelation in nature and conscience. The Bible says that from the created order alone, all persons can know that a Creator God exists and that God has implanted His moral law in the hearts of all persons so that they are held morally accountable to God (Rom. 1.20; 2.14-15). The Bible promises salvation to anyone who responds affirmatively to this self-revelation of God (Rom. 2.7).

Now this does not mean that they can be saved apart from Christ. Rather it means that the benefits of Christ's sacrifice can be applied to them without their conscious knowledge of Christ. They would be like people in the Old Testament before Jesus came who had no conscious knowledge of Christ but who were saved on the basis of his sacrifice through their response to the information that God had revealed to them. And, thus, salvation is truly available to all persons at all times. It all depends upon our free response."

Source: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-bradley1.html

BILLY GRAHAM AND ROBERT SCHULLER:

Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?

Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer - you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for his name. And that's what God is doing today - he's calling people out of the world for his name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved and that they're going to be with us in heaven.

Schuller: What, what I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?

Graham: Yes it is, because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.

Schuller: I'm so thrilled to hear you say this. There's a wideness in God's mercy.

Graham: There is. There definitely is.

Source: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/heterodoxy52.htm

JOEL OSTEEN AND LARRY KING:

KING: Because we've had ministers on who said, your record don't count. You either believe in Christ or you don't. If you believe in Christ, you are, you are going to heaven. And if you don't no matter what you've done in your life, you ain't.

OSTEEN: Yeah, I don't know. There's probably a balance between. I believe you have to know Christ. But I think that if you know Christ, if you're a believer in God, you're going to have some good works. I think it's a cop-out to say I'm a Christian but I don't ever do anything ...

KING: What if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?

OSTEEN: You know, I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't go to heaven. I don't know ...

KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're wrong, aren't they?

OSTEEN: Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong. I believe here's what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God with judge a person's heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don't know all about their religion. But I know they love God. And I don't know. I've seen their sincerity. So I don't know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.

CALLER: Hello, Larry. You're the best, and thank you, Joe -- Joel -- for your positive messages and your book. I'm wondering, though, why you side-stepped Larry's earlier question about how we get to heaven? The bible clearly tells us that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light and the only way to the father is through him. That's not really a message of condemnation but of truth.

OSTEEN: Yes, I would agree with her. I believe that...

KING: So then a Jew is not going to heaven?

OSTEEN: No. Here's my thing, Larry, is I can't judge somebody's heart. You know? Only god can look at somebody's heart, and so -- I don't know. To me, it's not my business to say, you know, this one is or this one isn't. I just say, here's what the bible teaches and I'm going to put my faith in Christ. And I just I think it's wrong when you go around saying, you're saying you're not going, you're not going, you're not going, because it's not exactly my way. I'm just...

KING: But you believe your way.

OSTEEN: I believe my way. I believe my way with all my heart.

KING: But for someone who doesn't share it is wrong, isn't he?

OSTEEN: Well, yes. Well, I don't know if I look at it like that. I would present my way, but I'm just going to let god be the judge of that. I don't know. I don't know.

KING: So you make no judgment on anyone?

OSTEEN: No. But I...

KING: What about atheists?

OSTEEN: You know what, I'm going to let someone -- I'm going to let god be the judge of who goes to heaven and hell. I just -- again, I present the truth, and I say it every week. You know, I believe it's a relationship with Jesus. But you know what? I'm not going to go around telling everybody else if they don't want to believe that that's going to be their choice. God's got to look at your own heart. God's got to look at your heart, and only god knows that.

KING: You believe there's a place called heaven?

OSTEEN: I believe there is. Yes. You know, you've had a lot of the near-death experiences and things like that. Some of that is very, to me, not that you need that as proof, but it shows you these little kids seeing the angels and things like that.

Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/03/lkl.01.html

Indeed it is heresy and a branch of the apostasy flowering anew in American Evangelicalism.

[Zipperhead]

More fun I think would be had in starting a thread entitled the Exclusivist Heretics and using this as example A...

Cheers,
XavierYou'll use anything as an excuse to make an off-topic post won't you? By the way, I read your debate with Marc Carpenter, you got pwned.

Now admit that you know that the men in my OP are heretics.

[Zipperhead]

Indeed it is heresy and a branch of the apostasy flowering anew in American Evangelicalism.Amen.

[Xavier]

You'll use anything as an excuse to make an off-topic post won't you? By the way, I read your debate with Marc Carpenter, you got pwned.

:rofl:

You mean the one where he ignored everything I said in favour of continuing to rant and rave his position.

Oh, come to think of it, you WOULD think that's how you "pwn" someone... :ahem:

Now admit that you know that the men in my OP are heretics.

Yeah, about as heretical as Christians have been for the last 2000 years... I love it when the Reformed whack-jobs forget that their brand of Christianity has no warrant in Christian thought prior to Augustine (and no 'real' warrant until Calvin).

Inclusivism is not universally recognized as a heresy. However, gnosisism is. I suggest you figure out the connect between doctrinal regeneration and this heresy before you find yourself in a tight spot.

Yours,
Xavier

[Zipperhead]

:rofl:

You mean the one where he ignored everything I said in favour of continuing to rant and rave his position.

Oh, come to think of it, you WOULD think that's how you "pwn" someone.Xavier wrote:

<<On to the topic, I COMPLETELY disagree that Calvinists and Arminians are worshiping different Gods. They both believe in the exact same exhaustive set of properties that make God god.>>

My response: I agree with this statement if you define "Calvinists" as those who claim to believe the doctrines of grace but who also consider Arminians to be their brothers in Christ. These "Calvinists" and Arminians are not worshipping different gods. They believe in the same god - a false god of human imagination.

On the other hand, CHRISTIANS and Arminians ARE worshipping different Gods. Christians and Arminians DO NOT both believe in the exact same exhaustive set of properties that make God God. Christians believe that God does not show one of His attributes at the expense of another attribute. For example, Christians believe that God does not show love at the expense of His justice. Christians believe that God does not send people to hell whom He loves. Christians do not believe that God sends people to hell for whom Christ died, and they believe that all whom Christ represented on the cross must be saved, because they believe that God is both a just God and a Savior; both just and Justifier. That is a BIG difference in the set of properties that make God God. The article by Chris Duncan on Romans 10:1-4 really shows this well. I'll try to get it posted here soon, the Lord willing.

Xavier wrote:

<<Of course, I view the Gospel as simply the truth of Christ's Sacrifice for mankind, not his brand of Calvinism.>>

My response: I don't believe in any brand of Calvinism. Now your definition of the gospel is "the truth of Christ's Sacrifice for mankind." By mankind, I assume you mean everyone without exception, since you claim to be an Arminian. With that in mind, a few questions: Of what does this sacrifice entail? Did this sacrifice satisfy the demands of God's law and justice? Did this sacrifice actually accomplish anything? Does this sacrifice make the only difference between salvation and damnation for all for whom Christ was sacrificed?

Marc:


<<"On the morrow, John sees Jesus coming toward him and said, Behold! The Lamb of God, taking away the sin of the world!" (Joh 1:29) Do you believe that Christ was taking away the sin of everyone without exception?>>

Xavier:

<<No.>>

Marc: Then what does "the world" mean in John 1:29?

-----

Marc:

<<"For the love of Christ constrains us, having judged this, that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that the living ones may live no more to themselves, but to the One having died for them and having been raised." (2Co 5:14-15) Do you believe that Christ died for everyone without exception?>>

Xavier:

<<Yes.>>

Marc:

<<What does "died for" mean?>>

Xavier:

<<Nailed to a Cross and DIED... What do you think it would mean?>>

Marc: Oh, really? That's what "died for" means? So everyone who was nailed to a cross and died DIED FOR everyone without exception? Obviously, you don't believe that. So what does "died for" really mean? It doesn't just mean "nailed to a cross and died." There's the word "FOR" in there. You say that Christ DIED FOR everyone without exception. What does that mean? What does the "FOR" mean? If He died FOR everyone without exception, what did that death accomplish? Was it a substitutionary death? Did He die IN THE PLACE OF everyone without exception? Did He endure God's wrath for the sins of everyone without exception? Did He make satisfaction for the sins of everyone without exception?

-----

Marc:

<<"as, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not charging their trespasses to them, and having put the Word of reconciliation in us." (2Co 5:19) Do you believe that God in Christ was reconciling everyone without exception unto Himself?>>

Xavier:

<<No. However, this scripture does bring about an interesting dilemmia that simply cannot be dealt with in the Calvinist position. What is "all the world"? Or "everyone"? See the 1 John passage later.>>

Marc: Why don't you answer that question for us? What does "the world" mean in this passage?

-----

Marc:

<<"the One having given Himself a ransom on behalf of all, the testimony to be given in its own time." (1Ti 2:6) Do you believe that Christ gave Himself a ransom on behalf of everyone without exception?>>

Xavier:

<<Yes.>>

Marc:

<<What does "ransom" mean?>>

Xavier:

<<Same as most of the other words floating around...>>

Marc: This is not helpful at all. What other words? Does it mean redemption? Atonement? Propitiation? If you believe that Christ gave Himself a RANSOM on behalf of everyone without exception, what does that RANSOM mean? What did that RANSOM do for everyone without exception?

-----

Marc:

<<"for to this we also labor and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Savior of all men, especially of believers." (1Ti 4:10) Do you believe that Christ is the Savior of everyone without exception?>>

Xavier:

<<He COULD be the Saviour of everyone.>>

Marc: But that's not what the passage says. It says that God IS the Savior of all men, not COULD BE. What does "Savior of all men" mean in this passage? But, of course, this betrays your heresy. According to you, Christ COULD be the Savior of everyone, if only everyone would LET Christ be their Savior. The poor weakling christ, wishing he could save everyone but thwarted in his wishes by man, who is more powerful than the blood of Christ.

-----

Marc:

<<"but we do see Jesus crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death was made a little less than the angels, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for all." (Heb 2:9) Do you believe that Christ tasted death for everyone without exception?>>

Xavier:

<<Yes.>>

Marc:

<<What does "taste death" mean?>>

Xavier:

<<He physically died.>>

Marc: But what did Christ's tasting death ACCOMPLISH? He tasted death FOR people. What does FOR mean? Did He do it just as an example, as some say? Did he just die to show his love for everyone? Or was his death a propitiatory, expiatory SACRIFICE? If it was a SACRIFICE, was it a sacrifice for everyone without exception? Did this sacrifice expiate, propitiate?

-----

Marc:

<<"But false prophets were also among the people, as also false teachers will be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, and denying the Master who has bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves." (2Pe 2:1) Do you believe that Christ bought everyone without exception?

Xavier:

<<That's a tough one... I'm going to pass on that one.>>

Marc: Really? So you're not so sure that there are blood-bought sinners in hell? Study up on the word RANSOM. But in this passage, would you not say that Christ's blood BOUGHT those false teachers who brought in destructive heresies?

-----

Marc:

<<"And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for all the world." (1Jo 2:2) Do you believe that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of everyone without exception?>>

Xavier:

<<Yes.>>

Marc:

<<What does "propitiation" mean?>>

Xavier:

<<That one who takes place of...>>

Marc: Oh no it doesn't. It means APPEASEMENT. It means CONCILIATION. To PROPITIATE means to APPEASE, to PACIFY, to ASSUAGE. Christ's atoning death FULLY APPEASED God's wrath for EVERYONE for whom Christ died. The blood of Christ MADE PEACE between God and all for whom Christ died. But YOUR god is a LIAR and an UNJUST FRAUD. Your christ supposedly propitiated for everyone without exception, yet some for whom your god's wrath was supposedly appeased end up suffering for those SAME SINS in hell. Those sins weren't punished after all on the cross, were they? God wasn't appeased after all, was he? Christ didn't actually ransom all for whom he died, did he? The death of your christ accomplished N O T H I N G for everyone for whom he died. Not a SINGLE THING. It merely gave them a chance to "accept" what this christ had supposedly "done" for them. Xavier, your god and my God are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BEINGS. They have DIFFERENT attributes, and they do DIFFERENT things. Your christ and my Christ are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BEINGS. They have DIFFERENT attributes, and they do DIFFERENT things. My Christ ACCOMPLISHED COMPLETE SALVATION for ALL whom He represented. What did YOUR christ do? YOUR christ is like the Baal of old in Elijah's day, whose worshipers cried from morning until noon and did not answer (whom Elijah mocked, by the way). You pray to a god who cannot save. Your god and your christ are idols of your own vain imagination. Oh, Xavier, can't you see it? Can't you see the difference? And all you "Calvinists" who would call Xavier your brother in Christ - can't you see it? Can't you see it, GoBahnsen? It is SO CLEAR! I am just so amazed at the incredible blindness of both the Arminians and tolerant Calvinists! But I pray to God that He will use this forum to bring His unregenerate elect to Himself!

THE Atonement whereby Jesus Christ, the God-man mediator, as a representative and substitute for His people, in His bloody death on the cross, accomplished full pardon, full redemption, full propitiation, and full reconciliation for everyone whom He represented, is the very essence, the very heart, the very core, the very foundation, the very cornerstone, the very crux of the gospel!!!!!! Anything less is a damnable false gospel!

REPENT of believing in salvation conditioned on the sinner and BELIEVE the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ ALONE!

To God ALONE be the glory,

Marc



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Marc:

<<Then what does "the world" mean in John 1:29?>>

Xavier:

<<You're the one who thinks it doesn't... Explain it me. (Yes, the answer was a trap.)>>

Marc: Since your answer was a trap, does that mean you believe that "the world" in John 1:29 DOES mean everyone without exception? (i.e., you were lying?) If so, this would mean that you believe that Jesus Christ TAKES AWAY the sin of everyone without exception, right?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Xavier:


<<They are ALL synonyms for the SAME action, sir. How do you go about reconciling YOUR view with the numerous mentions of "the World" or "All" or other synonyms???>>

I certainly don't do it the way many"Calvinists" do it by talking about "sufficient for all but efficient for the elect." That's just the Calvinist's way of universalizing the atonement.

The "world" does not mean "every human being without exception." Examples:

"The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him." (John 12:19)

"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19)

"But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world." (1 Corinthians 11:32)

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15)

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not." (1 John 3:1)

"Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you." (1 John 3:13)

"They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them." (1 John 4:5)

"And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." (1 John 5:19)

Obviously, "world" does not mean "every human being without exception." Now what does "world" mean in passages like John 3:16? In John 3:16, Jesus was talking to Nicodemus, a self-righteous Pharisee who believed that God's love was confined to the Jews only. Jesus told him this astounding thing -- that God's love was not confined just to the Jews, but was also manifested toward the Gentiles. God so loved the world -- both Jews and Gentiles -- that He gave His only begotten son. The Jews knew exactly what this meant. The Jews knew that Jesus was not talking about every individual without exception. When the Jews talked about the "world" in contrast with "us," they meant "Jews and Gentiles." John again talks about this in 1 John 2:2. He says that Jesus is not the propitiation for the Jews only, but the whole world, including the Gentiles. This is the mystery about which Paul speaks in Ephesians 3: "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery ... That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" (Ephesians 3:3-6; also see Colossians 1:25-27). The mystery that was hidden from ages and generations that is now revealed is that Jesus saves the world -- both Jews and Gentiles.

This is what the "world" means in passages talking of Christ's work.

How about the "all men" passages? For example, I Timothy 2:3-6 says," ... this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator also between man and God, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time."

1 Timothy 2:1 uses the term "all men," and verse 2 explains who the "all men" are. They are all KINDS of men. They are not all men without exception; they are all men without distinction. Those who use this to try to prove Arminianism must believe in a god who cannot fulfill what he desires, since he desires that all men be saved, but he cannot actually do that which he desires.

Now in the passage where it says that God is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe, that's not even talking about soteriology at all. "Savior" here means PRESERVER. Notice that it does not say that CHRIST is the Savior of all men; it says that GOD is the Savior of all men. It is talking about God the Father's preservation of His creatures, with special preservation of those who believe.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Xavier:


<<My Christ isn't weak as he went into a world that wasn't programmed from the get-go. It was reactive based on the needs of his creation.>>

A god who reacts to his creation! Not the true God who is the Creator and Controller of His creation. How much clearer can we get? These are TWO DIFFERENT GODS!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Marc:

<<But what did Christ's tasting death ACCOMPLISH?>>

Xavier:

<<You didn't ask that...>>

Marc: Okay, now I'm asking. What did Christ's tasting death ACCOMPLISH? Did Christ's death do ANYTHING in and of itself, WITHOUT the help or cooperation of sinners?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Marc:

<<Christ's atoning death FULLY APPEASED God's wrath for EVERYONE for whom Christ died.>>

Xavier:

<<No. It fully appeased those who asked for the gift. Just like in Calvinism.>>

Marc: Are you talking about MY views, or are you talking about Calvinism? SO WHAT if your views and Calvinism agree. I'm comparing your views to CHRISTIANITY. You speak of straw men - here's one of your own. You keep trying to say that your view is the same as Calvinism, thus trying to say that your view is the same as mine. If I haven't made it clear, let me make it VERY clear: MY VIEWS ARE NOT THE SAME AS CALVINISM. So there's no need to bring up Calvinism, because you're not debating a Calvinist.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Marc:


<<Those sins weren't punished after all on the cross, were they?>>

Xavier:

<<Again, not everyone believes that analogy for the atonement.>>

Marc: Are you saying that you believe that NO SINS were punished on the cross? Are you saying that Jesus Christ DID NOT endure God's wrath as punishment for the sins of certain people?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Marc:


<<God wasn't appeased after all, was he?>>

Xavier:

<<For some... Just like in Calvinism.>>

So what about Calvinism. The TRUTH is that God's wrath was FULLY APPEASED for EVERYONE for whom Jesus Christ died. God was FULLY SATISFIED with Christ's work on the cross. Christ's work is called THE SATISFACTION. God raised Jesus Christ from the dead because God was FULLY SATISFIED with His Son's work that FULLY ENSURED the salvation of EVERYONE whom He represented on the cross. THAT'S Christianity. If Calvinists say something different, they're not Christians. If you say something different, you're not a Christian.

Xavier:

<<Where's that??? What objection haven't I answered yet? Thus far, we've had strawman after strawman, and finally arrived at the conclusion that we both believed almost the same thing on the Atonement.>>

Marc: No we don't. We don't believe even close to the same thing on the atonement. Your christ died for those who are burning in hell! Your christ's death did not secure the salvation of everyone for whom he died! Your christ's death is not what makes the ultimate difference between salvation and damnation! What a WORLD of difference!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Xavier:


<<Because Arminians do not believe that the atonement is effective until the believer accepts the sacrifice on his behalf. The Elect are those who accept the sacrifice and thus are the only ones effectively covered by the atonement.>>

Marc: Salvation conditioned on the sinner! The atonement is made effectual NOT by Christ but by the SINNER! This is damnable blasphemy!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Xavier:


<<Arminians find that God's grace is resistable. We believe that God has allow man to exercise his will to accept or reject God.>>

Marc: Conditional grace! Conditional covenant! It's all conditioned on what MAN does!! Can you see it, GoBahnsen?

Source: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/efl117.htm

(lol)

[Zipperhead]

Yeah, about as heretical as Christians have been for the last 2000 years... I love it when the Reformed whack-jobs forget that their brand of Christianity has no warrant in Christian thought prior to Augustine (and no 'real' warrant until Calvin).Actrually, it's had warrant from eternity, to Genesis, to Revelation.Inclusivism is not universally recognized as a heresy.gnosisism is. I suggest you figure out the connect between doctrinal regeneration and this heresy before you find yourself in a tight spot.Who cares what a bunch of free willers "recognize" as heresy? Are you implying that inclusivism is not a heretical teaching?

BTW, I do not believe in doctrinal regeneration. Doctrinal regeneration asserts that people believe certain doctrines BEFORE regeneration, not after. I believe someone believes the gospel AFTER regeneration.

[Xavier]

Dare I say, Case in point...

You are hopeless, Zip.

[Xavier]

Actrually, it's had warrant from eternity, to Genesis, to Revelation.Who cares what a bunch of free willers "recognize" as heresy? Are you implying that inclusivism is not a heretical teaching?

Inclusivism is not a heresy. I ask you to prove your position.

BTW, I do not believe in doctrinal regeneration. Doctrinal regeneration asserts that people believe certain doctrines BEFORE regeneration, not after. I believe someone believes the gospel AFTER regeneration.

You really are THAT clueless, aren't you...

[Cheetah]

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG:

"Granted that it is neither unloving nor unjust of God to create a world in which some people freely reject Him forever, what about the fate of those who have never heard about Christ? How can God condemn people who through no fault of their own never had the opportunity to receive Christ as their Savior? A person's salvation or damnation thus appears to be the result of historical and geographical accident, which is incompatible with an all-loving God.

This objection is, however, fallacious, because it assumes that those who have never heard about Christ are judged on the same basis as those who have. But the Bible says that the unreached will be judged on a quite different basis than those who have heard the gospel. God will judge the unreached on the basis of their response to His self-revelation in nature and conscience. The Bible says that from the created order alone, all persons can know that a Creator God exists and that God has implanted His moral law in the hearts of all persons so that they are held morally accountable to God (Rom. 1.20; 2.14-15). The Bible promises salvation to anyone who responds affirmatively to this self-revelation of God (Rom. 2.7).

Now this does not mean that they can be saved apart from Christ. Rather it means that the benefits of Christ's sacrifice can be applied to them without their conscious knowledge of Christ. They would be like people in the Old Testament before Jesus came who had no conscious knowledge of Christ but who were saved on the basis of his sacrifice through their response to the information that God had revealed to them. And, thus, salvation is truly available to all persons at all times. It all depends upon our free response."

Source: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-bradley1.html

Willaim Craig isn't a heritic. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's taught me a fair bit of stuff and I think he's an alright guy.
Maybe he's a heritic to you, Zipper, but to most Christians, his teachings are for the most part acceptable.

[Spinyn00bman]

Inclusivism is not a heresy. I ask you to prove your position.




I agree.

You make some pretty strong accusations Zipper.

Could you take a moment to show some evidence?

Thanks.

[Zipperhead]

Inclusivism is not a heresy. I ask you to prove your position.Mark 16:16 - Read it.You really are THAT clueless, aren't you...Nice nonargument.

[Zipperhead]

Willaim Craig isn't a heritic. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's taught me a fair bit of stuff and I think he's an alright guy.
Maybe he's a heritic to you, Zipper, but to most Christians, his teachings are for the most part acceptable.Argument by denial......

[Zipperhead]

Actually, read Mark 16, verses 15 and 16, then make your case please.

[Xavier]

Mark 16:16 - Read it.

And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

So have you cast out demons, spoken in tongues, handle poison snakes without dying, and healed the sick with only your touch.

What's that? No? Then your bound to Hell as well.

Nice nonargument.

You would know being a disciple of Marc.

[Amazing Rando]

Mark 16:16 - Read it.

Mark 16:16- forget it. It wasn't originally part of the text of Mark's gospel.

[Xavier]

Mark 16:16- forget it. It wasn't originally part of the text of Mark's gospel.
Yeah, I was going to get to that eventually, but figured that it would fly right over Zipper's head.

[Zipperhead]

So have you cast out demons, spoken in tongues, handle poison snakes without dying, and healed the sick with only your touch.

What's that? No? Then your bound to Hell as well.Nice way of avoiding the issue.

The miracle gifts ceased with the death of the Apostles, but did belief in the gospel cease as a requirement for salvation?

Do Paul's letters lead you to believe that's the case?

[Amazing Rando]

Yeah, I was going to get to that eventually, but figured that it would fly right over Zipper's head.

BTW I'm going to beat your Karts score. Just you wait.

[Xavier]

Nice way of avoiding the issue.

The miracle gifts ceased with the death of the Apostles, but did belief in the gospel cease as a requirement for salvation?

Do Paul's letters lead you to believe that's the case?

Amusing write off... Your own text doesn't stand to scrutiny, so you run off for other proof texts (which you don't even bother to enumerate). I'm waiting when your ready to begin your defense.

[Thomas2003]

Look like heretics to me. The Osteen guy is hilarious, what a woman! :lol:

[Xavier]

BTW I'm going to beat your Karts score. Just you wait.

All I can say is patience... The game will dull your senses... :smile:

[Spinyn00bman]

Hey Zipper...

Did you INTENTIONALLY ignore my question or was it just an accident??

:ahem:

[{Tim}]

Meh. Of course Zippy considers them heretics. Anyone who doesn't agree with his exact theology is a heretic to him. :shrug: Because if they were truly saved, of course God would have revealed to them the correct theology... because that is oh-so-important for living everyday christian lives... :ahem:

[john-philip]

Argument by denial......

One line rebuttal.

[john-philip]

Zipperhead, can you give a deductive argument as to why inclusivism is heresy?

[Spinyn00bman]

Zipperhead, can you give a deductive argument as to why inclusivism is heresy?

There's that pesky question AGAIN Zipper.....dang thing just won't go away!!

:ahem:

[john-philip]

There's that pesky question AGAIN Zipper.....dang thing just won't go away!!

:ahem:
:lol:

[Cheetah]

Argument by denial......
I believe the burden of proof is on you Zipper to prove that he is a heritic. I'm denying your unfounded and slanderous accusations. All you've done is quote him and asserted that he is a heritic and that it's somehow obvious to us.

[Kevin Wayne]

I just downloaded the PDF file of Marc Carpenter's sermon on Purity. This will be good to show to my friends who think a Calvinist-like view of Predestintion will keep them from legalistic bondage. He's quite the piece of work.

[Bobby Lewis]

Nice way of avoiding the issue.

The miracle gifts ceased with the death of the Apostles, but did belief in the gospel cease as a requirement for salvation?

Do Paul's letters lead you to believe that's the case?

Hi there,
JPH wrote a good essay on this topic. If I weren't at such a slow computer, I would post a link. His most cogent point includes the change in subject matter: the women at the tomb to Jesus. Mark builds the credibility of the women only to depict them hiding in fear, and then to make a sudden shift to the risen Jesus. Improbable.

[Spinyn00bman]

I believe the burden of proof is on you Zipper to prove that he is a heritic. I'm denying your unfounded and slanderous accusations. All you've done is quote him and asserted that he is a heritic and that it's somehow obvious to us.

Ahhhhhhh!!!!! :outtie:

There it is again!!!!!!!

Why would all these people want you to explain yourself?????

[Ormly]

[QUOTE=Zipperhead][/QUOTE (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/03/lkl.01.html[/QUOTE)]

Acts 10:34-35 (NASB-U)
Opening his mouth, Peter said:
"I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.

Does that answer you question?

[GoBahnsen]

Xavier:


<<Arminians find that God's grace is resistable. We believe that God has allow man to exercise his will to accept or reject God.>>

Marc: Conditional grace! Conditional covenant! It's all conditioned on what MAN does!! Can you see it, GoBahnsen?

Source: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/efl117.htm (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/efl117.htm)

(lol) I see it Marc. BTW, that was so lamentable, what Billy Graham said to Shuller. Yet I won't declare Billy lost either. I think he erred and terribly, but where Marc and I differ is just that. The lines are too tightly drawn.

Many Christians start out Arminian and many die that way. I don't see that one need be correct on the extent of the atonement as a measure of salvation. The Bible uses language that is easily taken wrongly by many.

The Reformed believer has also erred, though like the Arminian, he knows not where. OTC demands a perfectionism in essential doctrines and I don't think God requires that. To say that God does brings down the axe on so many fine evangelical brothers and sisters...it is truly unthinkable to me.

I grant that it is hard to draw the lines and know when too much is too much. Maybe only God knows that. Having said that much, we are all under obligation to be as correct in our Gospel understanding as we possibly can be. We should never downplay the importance of sound doctrine.

It's doctrinal perfectionism that suddenly reduces the body of Christ down to a few hundred or thousand people thoughout the world. And these are deceived themselves, yet not necessarily to the loss of their souls. That's my take. Anything else is to basically remove myself from the visible church and be a part of a cult. Can you see it Marc?

[Furor]

Two questions.

1. Did Zipperhead actually accuse Xavier of "using any excuse to make an off-topic post" and then himself digress into discussion about an unrelated debate?

2. What does Zipperhead think of Romans 2:11-16?

[Ormly]

I see it Marc. BTW, that was so lamentable, what Billy Graham said to Shuller. Yet I won't declare Billy lost either. I think he erred and terribly, but where Marc and I differ is just that. The lines are too tightly drawn.

Many Christians start out Arminian and many die that way. I don't see that one need be correct on the extent of the atonement as a measure of salvation. The Bible uses language that is easily taken wrongly by many.

The Reformed believer has also erred, though like the Arminian, he knows not where. OTC demands a perfectionism in essential doctrines and I don't think God requires that. To say that God does brings down the axe on so many fine evangelical brothers and sisters...it is truly unthinkable to me.

I grant that it is hard to draw the lines and know when too much is too much. Maybe only God knows that. Having said that much, we are all under obligation to be as correct in our Gospel understanding as we possibly can be. We should never downplay the importance of sound doctrine.

It's doctrinal perfectionism that suddenly reduces the body of Christ down to a few hundred or thousand people thoughout the world. And these are deceived themselves, yet not necessarily to the loss of their souls. That's my take. Anything else is to basically remove myself from the visible church and be a part of a cult. Can you see it Marc?

Bull! Answer Acts 10.34,35.

[GoBahnsen]

Bull! Answer Acts 10.34,35.You're amazing. If I told you that you were right, you'd disagree. Go get the chip off your shoulder, it wearies me.

[Jaltus]

I'm sorry, were Acts 10:35,35 speaking to him? :ahem:

I do not know why you people even bother responding to Zipper. He has no credibility left. He challenged me to a debate, then backed out, then claimed he won the debate because I backed out (which I still do not get).

Why bother reading anything he writes? He clearly denies an essential aspect of the faith(ful): unity.

[Jaltus]

And for the record, Osteen is a heretic. He (I believe) denies the Trinity and he preaches prosperity gospel garbage.

[Xavier]

And for the record, Osteen is a heretic. He (I believe) denies the Trinity and he preaches prosperity gospel garbage.

Yeah... I wasn't going to argue for Osteen, but calling Craig a heretic is amusing.

[Ormly]

You're amazing. If I told you that you were right, you'd disagree. Go get the chip off your shoulder, it wearies me.

Well then stop saying stupid things if you understand so much as you say you do. Reconcile Acts 10.34, 35 with what you disagree with that Graham & co. have stated. Show their error based on Acts 10. 34,35. That is not to say they are and have not been in error in what they preach. But that's not the issue here. What they agree on is corrected. All need to see that.

FWIW, I don't care for Graham or Schuller. Schuller even less so. Osteen about as much Schuller. None of have ever preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ as He directed them to do, in the manner He directed them to..

[geebob]

sweet! Craig has come over to the inclusivist camp!?!

[geebob]

maybe not, Perhaps he WAS an inclusivist. This debate is 9 years old.

[Zipperhead]

I enjoy this.

Zipperhead: Join him, mock him, go against him, but...you won't forget him...Not as if I'm anything in and of myself, but the truth in my OP's is, well, truth indeed...why'm I admired by some here for what I do here? The answer to that is clear to me, but you, you will tackle the question for yourself. Surely there's a mighty work being done here! God will not see to it that any here that'r elect will go without substance given to them, and likewise he will not allow the doomed to go without more wrath heap'd upon them via exposure to the soundness of what I type (and their predestined rebellion against it). Take it for what it's worth, nay, rather: It will, that is, a weave of true statements: take you, and declare before God and the mighty angels: This is them that before the birth of time, were already planned for the pit! Bless the Lord, for he has made it such- that a man's being convinced is his doing, that is - The Lord's doing: and to him and him alone be the glory for it.

Ahmen.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

I'll pray for you, zippy.

[geebob]

This is them that before the birth of time, were already planned for the pit! Bless the Lord, for he has made it such-

And do you zipperhead, love them as yourself?

[Zipperhead]

Yes.

[Zipperhead]

This Much better - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1194824&postcount=2

^ That, much better.

[geebob]

yes

So if you love them as yourself, putting yourself into their shoes, how would you like the idea that God has reprobated you for all eternity?

Do you value God's grace for them as much as you value it for yourself? Would you spurn God's rejection of them as you would for yourself?

[Zipperhead]

So if you love them as yourself, putting yourself into their shoes, how would you like the idea that God has reprobated you for all eternity?

Do you value God's grace for them as much as you value it for yourself? Would you spurn God's rejection of them as you would for yourself?These are questions you must carefully gain answers to through the NT: I could answer them for ya, but I think God just might force you to find out from his Word - to then either hate his plan more, or through the quicken'n of the Spirit embrace it furiously.

God's will shall be done.

[seer]

Look like heretics to me. The Osteen guy is hilarious, what a woman! :lol:

I have to agree with you there Tom... A Nancy Boy...

[geebob]

These are questions you must carefully gain answers to through the NT:

I'm not questioning you to gain answers for myself.

I am questioning you to show that you don't have answers to this question.

Do you love your neighbor as yourself? how do you deal with their reprobation, as if it were your own?

[Dave G]

Dang, it takes a lot of huevos to call Billy Graham a heretic.

[Zipperhead]

I am questioning you to show that you don't have answers to this question.No man has the answers: God alone has the answers. His answers are found in his Word: and should he make you read it carefully, and should the Spirit reveal what it puts forth, you will know the answers to your questions, and whether or not you'll agree that those match my statements- that will depend on more knowledge given by God.

The Holy Ghost has kept me from puffing up, that I may not think I am the one with the answers: you will find if it will be that God causes you to seek.

Ahmen.

[Jaltus]

I myself am a bit shaken by Graham. However, this clearl contradicts some of his earlier stances. I tend to think it is his old age creeping in (:poke: :geebob:).

[geebob]

and should he make you read it carefully, and should the Spirit reveal what it puts forth,

The second greatest commandment is from God himself. And it's implications are evident. You cannot accept reprobation and love your neighbor as yourself without total despair. And hence, you cannot fully love God with all your heart if you have such despair. You cannot love a plan of his that would reprobate you for eternity (and of course I'm not saying you are, only that you would identify your neighbor's plight as if it were your own).

The spirit won't give an answer to this question because there is none. And if there is an answer, then why won't the spirit reveal it to you?

[Zipperhead]

The spirit won't give an answer to this question because there is none. And if there is an answer, then why won't the spirit reveal it to you?The Spirit has indeed given me the answer, has he to you?

[geebob]

The Spirit has indeed given me the answer, has he to you?


I already told you there is no answer. Reprobation cannot be made to cohere with the two greatest commandments.

But if you believe the spirit has given you an answer then share it.

[infide]

I love it zipperhead, someone who is so much more knowledgeable about reason and Scripture and theology, you call a heretic with no proof, only your own interpretation (which obviously could be wrong) to support your case.

Lets consider inclusivism from several perspectives.

historical considerations

Old Testament and Apocryphal

The first and most obvious consideration is that of the OT saints, none of which knew Jesus, his specific mission, or the full teaching of the NT Gospel.

1 Peter 1:12, "To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into." (NKJ)

Romans 16:25, "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began" (NKJ)

Yet, we believe and confess that many of these Old Testament characters were saved in terms of the judgement, and will be in the communion of the saints at the end of the age. Why? Because they exhibited faith towards the revelation and promises which were given to them. (cf. Hebrews 11)

Thus, salvation cannot be limited to ONLY those who hear and accept the specific revelation of Jesus otherwise we must exclude all the OT saints, but God offers salvation through Jesus to many whom He knows (notice, not those who know Jesus, but those whom Jesus knows).

Now perhaps the restrictivist may be tempted to change positions slightly here and say that in the OT, people were saved in Israel by faith towards YHWH. This is, first of all, quite an admission, though! It would be denying that the knowledge of Christ is needed for salvation. Secondly,

1 Enoch 108:11-13, "And now I will summon the spirits of the good who belong to the generation of light, and I will transform those who were born in darkness, who in the flesh were not recompensed 12 with such honour as their faithfulness deserved. And I will bring forth in shining light those who 13 have loved My holy name, and I will seat each on the throne of his honour. And they shall be resplendent for times without number; for righteousness is the judgement of God;" (translation by R.H. Charles, Oxford Press).

Now, as most probably find the book of Enoch as unauthoratative, i use it only to demonstrate that the view was in practice, that those born in darkness (Gentiles) who did not live for the flesh but were faithful, would be saved. Further, looking into the teachings of the school of Hillel and the Rabbi Joshua will find similar views among Jewish rabbinic thought.

Church Fathers

Many of the Logos Christologians (see Clement of Rome in First Epistle 7:5-7, Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses II.6:1, IV.6:5-7, and Justin Martyr in First Apology XLVI, among others) were Inclusivists, teaching that the Logos is known to all people, and therefore salvation universally available to all.

Others, like Clement of Alexandria, held inclusivism alongside other non-restrictivist views (like eschatological evangelism).

Other notable inclusivists throughout Church History

Abelard (12th century) ( look in his Christian Theology) was a limited inclusivist.

Zwingli, reasoning that the works of God could not be done without the grace of God pondered that God's election extended beyond the boundaries of evangelism.

Erasmus made similar pronouncements as Zwingli, noting that, "the company of saints includes many not in our calendar".

John Milton, Robert Barclay, Matthew Henry, John Locke, were among 17th C. inclusivists.

In the 18th century, the most prominent inclusivist was one of my favorites, John Wesley. As well as Samuel Clarke, Richard Baxter, Pope Pius IX, Grinfield among others.

19th and 20th centuries have myriads of prominent inclusivists, from William Booth, Edward Pusey, Lucius Smith, Soren Kierkegaard seemed to endorse inclusivism in his writings, C.S. Lewis, Edward Selwyn, Peter Cortterell, Stuart Hackett, N.T. Wright, Clark Pinnock, J. I. Packer, Millard Erickson, Roman Catholic Theology in general, etc.

Biblical Considerations

"12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." (Romans 2, NKJ)

To make Paul's statements here hypothetical and applicable to no man could be nothing more then a disservice to the text.

"That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world." (John 1:9, NKJ)

Every man who comes in the world is said to receive light, and that light is the light of Christ. This seems to imply that all people who come into this world have an opportunity to know God, and be saved by Him.

and the other Scriptures already presented.

ethical considerations

The idea that God would judge someone for the geographical location they find themselves in (say, for example, their inaccessibility in terms of missionaries) is incomprehensible. Especially since Paul preaches in Acts 17 that God has determined exactly where each man would be determined to live. Thus, God knowing that they are being born into a fallen world and leaving them without an opportunity to receive the only possible escape is utterly unjust. An adaquate response to this consideration would give an explanation as to how such a scheme would be ethically correct or even logical. That is, why does God expect people to be saved or punish them for not being saved - if He Himself doesnt give them the ability to be saved.

peace,
jd