Universalism before and after X

N

Noone special

Registered Member
I'm a theologian and have come across somewhat of an issue. You will excuse me, the problem I come with precedes with the presupposition in the authority and the unity of the bible. If you are not a theologian it might be just jibberish to you, but you are welcome to tell me your advice.

Thinking about the past the other day, I couldn't help but wonder " how did people before Christ obtain salvation?" You might answer "Those who had faith in God." Well in that case, what makes socrates different from Moses? Indeed it also raises a deeper issue namely: "If salvation was possible without Christ, before he died, why was it neccesary for him to come in the first place?"

It migh be argued that those who had faith in a coming messaiah of the old testament would be justified by their faith, but where in the old testament is the Jewish faith exclusive? The bible speaks of Job, who was before Abraham, and was not a jew, and he was saved (or maybe not, but then why have a book about him?) or melkizedeck who was a "priest of the Lord" but a contemporary of Abraham!

So my main problem is this folks: If there was salvation outside of Christ and even the Jewish faith, why would there not be today?
So if anyone can clear that up for me, or perhaps argue that this is evidence of the fallacy of scripture, please aid me.
 
I asked what I think is a question upon similar lines in another thread (it was a little off topic though) - I don't feel that I ever got a straight answer.

A point was raised that in order to avoid hell / go to heaven, your worldly deeds, and the fruits of those deeds were irrelevant unless you had been "saved" by Jesus Christ.

To which I observed that - if that was really the case - if you were to compare, for example, George W Bush who is by his own admission a born again Christian - but nonetheless a born again Christian who has never been observed to demonstrate anything close to what might be considered as Christian values or Christain behaviours in his public life at least - to Mahatma Ghandi a Hindu who's beleifs and actions in his life (apparently both public and private) are those to which a person of any religion could recognise as being of the very highest standards we could aspire to as a human being, the two the only one who had any chance of salvation was GWB.

Now it may well be that GWB is not the evil murderous mammon worshiping little satan that he appears to be, and he may well have many qualities that the big pink pixie in the sky admires and desires for his heavenly throng
But that's not really the point - what about the clearly pure in heart and soul Ghandi - bound for the lake of fire apparently - and sent there by a just God for the sheer accident of birth of having been born a hindu.

explain the justice there to me someone please.

ps - NoS the solution is recognise religion for the crazy devisive nonsense it really is, realise that all of the human race is one, love EVERYONE, stop worshiping a silly god that gets in the way of that, and get on with your life and stop worring about it - it worked for me :)
 
Last edited:
No One Special:

Tradition holds that those who came before Jesus resided in "paradise" or "The Hell (non-negative) of the Fathers". This is referenced by Jesus to the thief on the cross and it is extrapolated, specifically in Catholicism, to a pre-Heaven paradisical state. This is where Abraham spoke to Lazarus and Abel would not stop crying out for vengeance against Cain.

Furthermore, "limbo" is where righteous non-Christians, even unto this day, are kept. However, this notion of "limbo" has been quashed by Catholics recently to a certain extent. This goes alongside the issue of unbaptized infants and aborted children.
 
synthesizer-patel: Well a christian answer to the "justice" would be this: since we are all sinners, if we attempt to achieve salvation through purifying our own souls, it will never work. And because of our "depraved" nature, we are all destined to hell anyway, and it is just and merciful that God would save even a few... However I feel this is slightly off topic.

But that is a trully interesting conversation topic. According to a christian perspective, could Ghandi have been saved? In the Old Testament, God reached out to Abraham, who was a pagan, so how can we say Ghandi did not know God?

PJ: Well I understand the argument of "Abrahams Bosom" (although honestly I don't find much biblical proof to it perhaps Rom 10:7 and a ambiguous reference in the Old Testament) But I think that point just postpones the issue. Who exactly goes into "Paradise" or "Abrahams Bosom"? Certainly Job did, who was not a Jew. Or perhaps everyone did. Some might even argue that if you never hear about Jesus when your alive, youll get told about him after you die (though I don't know about that either)

So I am stuck again in my predicament.
 
Salvation is a concept which transcends the Christian religion. Being alive and intelligent is in itself a difficult burden. The Buddha said life is suffering, and realization of our own nature is salvation. Jesus said similar things in his lifetime, but he was limited to the theological language of the day.

The "unity" of the bible is not a teneble position by any intellectual measure, so that's a handicap right off.
 
Noone special said:
I'm a theologian and have come across somewhat of an issue. You will excuse me, the problem I come with precedes with the presupposition in the authority and the unity of the bible. If you are not a theologian it might be just jibberish to you, but you are welcome to tell me your advice.

Thinking about the past the other day, I couldn't help but wonder " how did people before Christ obtain salvation?" You might answer "Those who had faith in God." Well in that case, what makes socrates different from Moses? Indeed it also raises a deeper issue namely: "If salvation was possible without Christ, before he died, why was it neccesary for him to come in the first place?"

It migh be argued that those who had faith in a coming messaiah of the old testament would be justified by their faith, but where in the old testament is the Jewish faith exclusive? The bible speaks of Job, who was before Abraham, and was not a jew, and he was saved (or maybe not, but then why have a book about him?) or melkizedeck who was a "priest of the Lord" but a contemporary of Abraham!

So my main problem is this folks: If there was salvation outside of Christ and even the Jewish faith, why would there not be today?
So if anyone can clear that up for me, or perhaps argue that this is evidence of the fallacy of scripture, please aid me.
Click to expand...

it short religious principles are always apt to deteriorate within human civilization - so according to time place and circumstance there are various incarnations of god/saintly people to properly re-establish religious principles
 
Noone Special:

PJ: Well I understand the argument of "Abrahams Bosom" (although honestly I don't find much biblical proof to it perhaps Rom 10:7 and a ambiguous reference in the Old Testament) But I think that point just postpones the issue. Who exactly goes into "Paradise" or "Abrahams Bosom"? Certainly Job did, who was not a Jew. Or perhaps everyone did. Some might even argue that if you never hear about Jesus when your alive, youll get told about him after you die (though I don't know about that either)
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell

Check some of these sources/beliefs out. I think you might find your answer.
 
Noone special said:
I'm a theologian and have come across somewhat of an issue. You will excuse me, the problem I come with precedes with the presupposition in the authority and the unity of the bible. If you are not a theologian it might be just jibberish to you, but you are welcome to tell me your advice.

Thinking about the past the other day, I couldn't help but wonder " how did people before Christ obtain salvation?" You might answer "Those who had faith in God." Well in that case, what makes socrates different from Moses? Indeed it also raises a deeper issue namely: "If salvation was possible without Christ, before he died, why was it neccesary for him to come in the first place?"

It migh be argued that those who had faith in a coming messaiah of the old testament would be justified by their faith, but where in the old testament is the Jewish faith exclusive? The bible speaks of Job, who was before Abraham, and was not a jew, and he was saved (or maybe not, but then why have a book about him?) or melkizedeck who was a "priest of the Lord" but a contemporary of Abraham!

So my main problem is this folks: If there was salvation outside of Christ and even the Jewish faith, why would there not be today?
So if anyone can clear that up for me, or perhaps argue that this is evidence of the fallacy of scripture, please aid me.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, the problems you mention above emerge when these tenets are held and the Bible is read with unquestioning faith in these tenets:

1. that the Earth is only some six or ten thousand years old;
2. that there is only one earthly creation - namely the one we commonly refer to as "Earth", and not that earthly creations would follow one upon another, ie. one being created and then destroyed, and then another one created and destroyed, and so on many many times;
3. that each human has only one lifetime in one material body (about 70 years or so) and that there is no such thing as multiple rebirth/reincarnation as it is known in Hinduism or Buddhism;
4. that there exists eternal hell and people will go there who do not accept Jesus as their savior;
5. that Jesus is the one and only form of God incarnate;
6. that God works in mysterious ways that a human cannot understand, so one would do better not to ask any challenging questions or reflect on them.


I think one needs to examine these tenets ...
 
Noone special said:
I'm a theologian and have come across somewhat of an issue. You will excuse me, the problem I come with precedes with the presupposition in the authority and the unity of the bible. If you are not a theologian it might be just jibberish to you, but you are welcome to tell me your advice.

Thinking about the past the other day, I couldn't help but wonder " how did people before Christ obtain salvation?"
Click to expand...

Salvation is through Jesus and always has been through Jesus. Those before Jesus was born looked forward to their future slavation.


"If salvation was possible without Christ, before he died, why was it neccesary for him to come in the first place?"
Click to expand...

Salvation did not come before Christ. But that does not mean that all where condemned before Christ. the Scritpures declares:

1 Peter 3
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.

So Jesus went and gave the saving Word to those who where formerly disobediant.


So my main problem is this folks: If there was salvation outside of Christ and even the Jewish faith, why would there not be today?
Click to expand...

There has never been salvation outside Jesus and there is not today.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Well you make a good point, that Christ went a preached to those who had died before He arrived on earth. Unfortunately that brings up a dilemma. If people are preached too after they die, and they get a chance to accept Christ, what's the point of evangelizing now? In fact, what was all the hubub that Paul did when he travelled the entire Graeco-Roman world trying to get as many people saved as he could?

Certainly if those who didn't get a chance to hear about Christ (the disobedient during Noah's time) then those who don't hear about Him today will also.

How exactly is this consistent?
 
Noone special said:
So my main problem is this folks: If there was salvation outside of Christ and even the Jewish faith, why would there not be today?
Click to expand...

The correct answer subjectively is anything you want it to be. The correct answer objectively is that salvation isn't real.
 
Noone special said:
I'm a theologian and have come across somewhat of an issue. You will excuse me, the problem I come with precedes with the presupposition in the authority and the unity of the bible. If you are not a theologian it might be just jibberish to you, but you are welcome to tell me your advice.

Thinking about the past the other day, I couldn't help but wonder " how did people before Christ obtain salvation?" You might answer "Those who had faith in God." Well in that case, what makes socrates different from Moses? Indeed it also raises a deeper issue namely: "If salvation was possible without Christ, before he died, why was it neccesary for him to come in the first place?"

It migh be argued that those who had faith in a coming messaiah of the old testament would be justified by their faith, but where in the old testament is the Jewish faith exclusive? The bible speaks of Job, who was before Abraham, and was not a jew, and he was saved (or maybe not, but then why have a book about him?) or melkizedeck who was a "priest of the Lord" but a contemporary of Abraham!

So my main problem is this folks: If there was salvation outside of Christ and even the Jewish faith, why would there not be today?
So if anyone can clear that up for me, or perhaps argue that this is evidence of the fallacy of scripture, please aid me.
Click to expand...

There isn't one answer to this. I think a lot of Christians think you can make it without accepting Jesus as your personal savior and there are a lot who think you can't.

Some say that Jesus came to make it EASIER. He greased the wheels of salvation with his blood. So we can be saved more easily. Once he was on the scene, man, if you don't recognize him - after all he did for you - then you are going to hell.

The problem is also not just one of time, but also of place. I mean Yamano Indians, even today, there must be some who have not come in contact with the idea of Jesus. Not many but a few. Certainly 100 years ago there were many who never heard of the guy, especially in a Christian context. I mean members of Islam have him in their stories, but not in the Christian way.

Or in much of China, etc.

Theology has often struck me as like the law. It has very little to do with justice, but is all about deducing conclusions from axioms. I cannot imagine God is bound by all this game playing.
 
I take the negative stance for sake of argument, but maybe that was wrong seeing that I don't find a worthy defender.
Is there any out there who would take it upon themselves to find unity in scripture and show the consistency of a "salvific plan"? (see my previous posts)
If your going to believe in the bible, you should at least be able to show that it is not self-contradictory.
 
Noone special said:
Well you make a good point, that Christ went a preached to those who had died before He arrived on earth. Unfortunately that brings up a dilemma. If people are preached too after they die, and they get a chance to accept Christ, what's the point of evangelizing now? In fact, what was all the hubub that Paul did when he travelled the entire Graeco-Roman world trying to get as many people saved as he could?

Certainly if those who didn't get a chance to hear about Christ (the disobedient during Noah's time) then those who don't hear about Him today will also.

How exactly is this consistent?
Click to expand...
It's not.
Though some would say that it was God's will that he do this. God wanted the Litmus test shifted and good little christians have spread the word. Also that since Jesus makes it easier, you lose a few who ignore and get damned, but you save more who find their way to heaven more easily having come in contact with Jesus' teachings.

They hear the stories and become good people and christians. Get it? Christianity is better at purifying souls. Not as many Jews make it to heaven, but it is possible. After being exposed to Jesus more people get that lovin heart and hear God and will make it through the right gates. It is true that some will hear Jesus' words and choose not to follow him and be damned, but statistics are still behind spreading the word.

Jesus was sent because God saw that people just weren't getting it that much.

I think the whole thing is dopey, but it can be consistant. Many assinine things have internal consistancy. Heroin abuse, for example.
 
Noone special said:
I take the negative stance for sake of argument, but maybe that was wrong seeing that I don't find a worthy defender.
Is there any out there who would take it upon themselves to find unity in scripture and show the consistency of a "salvific plan"? (see my previous posts)
If your going to believe in the bible, you should at least be able to show that it is not self-contradictory.
Click to expand...

Just make something up so it doesn't appear to be self-contradictory.
 
Haha, if sarcasm was gold you all would be dead, on acount that you would be burried in gold. And we all know that if someone is burried in gold they can't move to go eat something. And your gall bladder would probably be crushed by the weight.

Death by gall bladder squishing is not pleasant, believe me.

But as to the subject at hand, I think that its settled for now, thanks for the comments yall.
 
Me too. Christians make things up so it seems a valid Christian method of dealing with contradiction.
 
I actually think they can manage to come up with a consistant explanation for the whole saved before Jesus was born issue. I know. I have argued with them. They can be consistant, but what you end up with is this very game-like scenario. Sure some all powerful being could have done it that way, but was this really the best he could come up with. It should be embarrassing, but, of course, it isn't to them.

I also think it is OK to say you don't know, but you have a gut feeling of belief in the core of something.

But Christians, at least on the internet - much less so in person - have answers. They can demonstrate why it makes sense. Which I find odd. Especially with all the 'mysterious ways' talk in certain contexts and the fact that we are talking about God.

It would be so wonderful if one would say:

You know, I don't know. I can understand why you are pressing that point. I believe in the core message of the Bible and I believe that Jesus was.......(etc) but I am not sure how this is resolved. In my case it does not matter. I have heard of Jesus and.....and so on.

But somehow a very large % of online Christians are theologens who don't really get stumped.

There is such fear around saying I don't know - not that this trait is only found in theists. I mean one can be right and not necessarily have access to a great explanation or even a poorly worded but correct one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top