Debate with Geocreationism
Recently, I had the good fortune to engage in an online debate with the webmaster of Geocreationsim.com. He had issue with one of my posts where I contended that Jesus Christ was the only way to God. Here is the text of the original post:
An article about John Sanders, former professor of religion and philosophy at Huntington University and author of The God Who Risks, recently came to my attention as I was studying some of James White’s debates. Sanders is the most vocal proponent of open theism. Sanders was removed from the staff of Huntington University in 2003 for promoting “probablistic prophecy,” the veiw that biblical prophecy is not certain since God doesn’t know with certainty what free beings will choose to do. Sanders’s views on what happens to the unevangelized is as follows:
According to Sanders, God reaches out to all people “via general revelation, conscience and human culture.” People are saved if they “respond in trusting faith to the revelation they have.”[53] To claim that salvation comes only to those who know Christ’s name or who understand certain doctrines is akin to Gnosticism, in which salvation comes only to those who possess special knowledge.[54] In fact, he notes, if salvation comes only to those who know the name of Jesus then the patriarchs of the Old Testament are doomed to hell![55] Rather, he says, citing C.S. Lewis, “every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god…is accepted by the true God,” and “Christ saves many who do not think they know him.”[56] In the end it is only those who decline God’s grace that will be damned. [emphasis added]
In other words, Jesus Christ isn’t the only way to God. What makes this man scary is the fact that he doesn’t deny that Jesus is the Son of God and that He came to save humanity. This means that Sanders doesn’t fit the biblical definition of an antichrist, but I think this statement gets him close.
Geo posted the following response:
I am unfamiliar with Sanders, but agree with the views about the unevangelized. You summarize the paragraph as “In other words, Jesus Christ isn’t the only way to God.” As you surely agree, Jesus is in fact the only way, and I believe that, too. Yet, I agree with the views quoted in that paragraph! How so?Consider the patriarchs. They had saving faith, and they will be in Heaven. They did not know Jesus’ name, but they knew God, and so Jesus died for their sins.Consider the thief on the cross. He never asked Jesus into His heart, and never repented of His sins. He knew nothing of theology, and wasn’t baptized, but He went to be with Jesus in paradise.Satan on the other hand, knows theology better than any of us, knows Jesus’ name, and believes Him to be God’s son… and He’ll spend eternity in Hell.So, who will go to Heaven, and who will go to Hell? Someone who knows Jesus and rejects Him will go to Hell; someone who never heard of Jesus, but realizes there is a God, and worships Him in faith and truth, will go to Heaven.Someone who serves in church his entire life without ever dying to himself will go to hell. Someone who rejects the church because of the hypocrites he grew up with, then converted to Judaism and lived it as faithfully as possible out of genuine love for God will go to heaven, and find that Jesus died for His sins.Don’t get wrong. I agree that Sanders’ “probabilistic prophecy” theory is completely wrong, but sending someone to Hell who loves God with all his heart, soul, and, mind, and loves His neighbor as Himself, just because he doesn’t realize that Jesus is the very God he is living for, just doesn’t make sense to me.
My response:
The webmaster of Geocreationism.com has challenged me in a recent comment on my viewpoints regarding the unevangelized. Overall, I would have to say that, as the Bible plainly teaches, Jesus Christ is the only name by which we are saved (Acts 4:12). There is no other way to salvation (Jn 14:6). Geo, however, thinks that is unfair and subscribes to the same type of inclusivism that John Sanders promotes.
Let’s answer his specific charges:
Consider the patriarchs. They had saving faith, and they will be in Heaven. They did not know Jesus’ name, but they knew God, and so Jesus died for their sins.
Irrelevant. God had not yet revealed Jesus to us yet. They were under the Old Covenant, which Jesus erased. Next!
Consider the thief on the cross. He never asked Jesus into His heart, and never repented of His sins. He knew nothing of theology, and wasn’t baptized, but He went to be with Jesus in paradise.
I disagree on all points. The thief said these words:
Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” [Lk 23:40-42, emphasis added]
Though Luke never actually says, “The man repented that day,” it seems clear from the words that the guy used he was sorry for what he did. He admitted that the punishment he was receiving was just. Only a person sorry for his sin would do that. Then he asked Jesus to remember him when he came into his kingdom, thus confessing with his mouth that Jesus was God and the savior.
No one has to be a theology scholar to go to heaven. I know plenty of genuinely saved people who are not (nor ever will be) theology scholars. I have never placed a requirement upon baptism, since I do not believe that salvation has occurred through our own efforts. Requiring anything but obedience to His will is adding our own work to the effort, and that is unbiblical.
Sounds like the thief met the requirements to me!
Satan on the other hand, knows theology better than any of us, knows Jesus’ name, and believes Him to be God’s son… and He’ll spend eternity in Hell.
The Bible addresses this issue. It is not enough to be hearers of the word, but doers of the word (Jms 1:22). The entire epistle of James is based on that issue. Clearly, Satan does not do the work of God, that is why he knows the word of God but will end up spending eternity in hell.
So, who will go to Heaven, and who will go to Hell? Someone who knows Jesus and rejects Him will go to Hell;
Agreed.
someone who never heard of Jesus, but realizes there is a God, and worships Him in faith and truth, will go to Heaven.
Really? Re-read this chapter, please.
Someone who serves in church his entire life without ever dying to himself will go to hell.
Agreed.
Someone who rejects the church because of the hypocrites he grew up with, then converted to Judaism and lived it as faithfully as possible out of genuine love for God will go to heaven, and find that Jesus died for His sins.
Disagree, if you carry the philosophy to an extreme. Muslim terrorists blowing up buildings out of genuine love for Allah and their desire to serve him should not be getting into heaven, despite the fact that Allah may be God for that particular Muslim (see here for more information on that enigmatic comment).
I can agree to that comment interpreted in light of Proverbs 16:2–”All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the spirit.”
Don’t get wrong. I agree that Sanders’ “probabilistic prophecy” theory is completely wrong, but sending someone to Hell who loves God with all his heart, soul, and, mind, and loves His neighbor as Himself, just because he doesn’t realize that Jesus is the very God he is living for, just doesn’t make sense to me.
In all things, we must trust God. Find better explanations of what happens to the unevangelized and why this happens here and here, and in the interest of fairness, a list of supporting positions for several other viewpoints here. The long and the short of it is, if you believe in Christ and live out the teachings of the Bible, to heaven you go. Otherwise, it looks like your destiny lies elsewhere.
This comment was a perfect example of a watered-down theology that plays up the loving aspect of God, but downplays the judgement aspect. As our Creator, God is still able to decide, by whatever criteria He ordains and establishes, who joins Him in eternal paradise and who is punished for all eternity.
None of this happy news for Christians! This is why evangelism is so important. That is why we should proclaim the saving name of Jesus whenever we can to whomever we can. You never know who you may have been called to reach. You may be the only Christian someone meets in their entire life.
Hell is filling up with people who never heard the name of Jesus. I know many are not comfortable with that view, but I believe that this is the reality of Scripture. I further believe that it is man’s shortcomings (Prv 19:3), not God’s will (2Pet 3:9) that results in these unevangelized souls in Hell. God is calling Christians to change that.
The question then becomes “What are we going to do about it?” The answer is not to invent a softer theology and hope for the best. The answer should be to incorporate evangelism into our daily routine. I created this blog, for example. Other people leave those annoying Chick tracts in restrooms or hand them to me when I give them their food at my drive-thru window. Some people take the effort door-to-door. A few special ones work in the missions field.
Bottom line: everyone should do something to help the effort out. Those with no specific mission calling should give money to support these outreach efforts. I think that this is the most Scripturally sound point of view.
Of course, comments are invited and encouraged. I’m not the the Pope, so I don’t have the luxury of papal infallibility when I ramble on this blog. (Alpha & Omega Ministries director James White’s worst nightmare: http://blog.papalinfallibility.va — When Pronouncements just have to be made RIGHT NOW! Or Creating New Canons at the Speed of Light! The Cyberspace Destination for the Holy Father’s Fans, Admirers, and Seekers of Spiritual Guidance!)
That last paragraph is a perfect example of the weird humor that my wife has to live with every single day. I don’t know how she puts up with me sometimes. Thanks honey!
Then he said:
Good responses!PATRIARCHS — I agree that they were under the old covenant. I mention them because they are examples of people who didn’t know Jesus in word, though I believe they knew Him in spirit. The point is that they were saved based on the state of their heart.By the way, Jesus didn’t erase the old covenant… He came to fulfill it. In a practical sense, I agree that the old is nullified by the new, if that’s all you mean. But legally, the law has not been erased, just ultimately satifisfied by Jesus’ death and resurrection.THE THIEF - I agree that the thief was repentant, meaning it’s possible for your heart to be in a state not explicitly stated, which is my only point.I am unsure that His confession was a recognition of Jesus’ deity. If it was, then it wasn’t stated. Therefore, the thief was not saved by his words per se, but the state of his heart as expressed through them.ROMANS 10 - The context is the unsaved Jew. Paul’s point is that you cannot say that Jews haven’t heard, because they have. The larger point is that they cannot live up to the law they were given, and so cannot be saved by it, but can be saved by the faith, as can the gentile.Note that for the righteousness of faith, the bottom line is the heart… what is spoken by the mouth is just an expression of it. So, we’re back to the heart again.MUSLIM TERRORISTS - This is not an extreme case of my example, though I can see why it would seem so. I specifically described someone who loved the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, and mind, and loved their neighbor as themself. Jesus Himself said that the law, the law He came to fulfill, rests on these commandments. Terrorism is about as far from loving your neighbor as themself as one can get!ARTICLE 1 - I agree with this quote, “It is foolish to debate the fairness of God sending someone to hell who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel of Christ. People are responsible to God for what God has already revealed to them.”If you think I believe that everyone who doesn’t hear of Jesus will go to heaven, I do not believe that. I believe that those who accept everything God has revealed to them will go to heaven… and that God doesn’t necessarily reveal the doctrine of Jesus, Cross, and resurrection to everyone.ARTICLE 2 - I agree with this statement, “We can, to a certain extent, know God through His creation (Rom. 1:21).” But then, the author goes on to say that the work is not complete until God reveals Jesus to this person through evangelism. I don’t think you can have it both ways. Well, if the person’s not saved until He’s actually led to the cross, then I do not think you can say he knew God at all until then.The first article made the point that we shouldn’t be arguing about stuff like this, and I agree. My point is not to argue. My point is that I risk being called “not a Christian” by my fellow Christians because I do not believe God necessarily reveals the doctrine of Jesus, Cross, and resurrection to every person He enters a loving relationship with.Every person who is saved has the law written on their hearts. Jeremiah prophesied it, and Paul recorded it. You can be deaf, dumb, and blind from birth, and still have the law written on your heart… it is then up to you to accept it or reject it, to love God or to hate Him. Everyone must make the choice.One last way to put this… the people I’m talking of would confess Jesus with their mouths if they learned of Him. They would lay their lives at the cross if they realized the cross was there. They would rejoice at the resurrection if they realized Jesus had conquered their sin. I am talking of no other. You can argue that such people will always be given the name of Jesus to confess, and will always be told of the cross and the resurrection. God certainly could do it, but I haven’t seen the proof yet… the fact that Gods sends missionaries (as the second article argues) isn’t proof… but God does command us to evangelize. For those we help save, it is quite certainly part of God’s will and plan.
I apologize for the length of this!
I left out something from my last large paragraph… it is only someone with the law written on their hearts who meets that description.
To that, I said:
Normally, if someone rebuts me, I just give in and just say “Okay, you win.”That would make me a pretty poor apologist. So, I will now proceed to rebut the rebuttal, so to speak. First, Geo opens with
Good responses!
Thanks. I try.
PATRIARCHS — I agree that they were under the old covenant. I mention them because they are examples of people who didn’t know Jesus in word, though I believe they knew Him in spirit. The point is that they were saved based on the state of their heart.
I could agree with that. Proverbs 16:2 says “All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes but the Lord weighs the spirit.” In other words, God isn’t interested so much in what you do, but why you do it.
By the way, Jesus didn’t erase the old covenant… He came to fulfill it. In a practical sense, I agree that the old is nullified by the new, if that’s all you mean. But legally, the law has not been erased, just ultimately satifisfied by Jesus’ death and resurrection.
I’m sorry I gave you the wrong impression. He fufilled the old covenant, which means that it is no longer valid. To use my word, He erased it. The Law, however, is still very much in effect (Mat 5:18).
THE THIEF - I agree that the thief was repentant, meaning it’s possible for your heart to be in a state not explicitly stated, which is my only point.
Not sure what that means.
I am unsure that His confession was a recognition of Jesus’ deity. If it was, then it wasn’t stated. Therefore, the thief was not saved by his words per se, but the state of his heart as expressed through them.
I never meant to imply that he was saved by his words, only that his words indicated that he believed in Jesus. “Remember me when you get to your kingdom” sounds as though he’s pretty convinced of Jesus’ deity. I’m willing to concede that I may be wrong. But, I would like to point out that God knows our hearts very well (Ps 139:1-6). It is impossible to hide our true motives from Him.
Therefore, I propose if the thief was saved it is because God knew that this man believed in Jesus and His divine mission.
ROMANS 10 - The context is the unsaved Jew. Paul’s point is that you cannot say that Jews haven’t heard, because they have. The larger point is that they cannot live up to the law they were given, and so cannot be saved by it, but can be saved by the faith, as can the gentile.
Note that for the righteousness of faith, the bottom line is the heart… what is spoken by the mouth is just an expression of it. So, we’re back to the heart again.
I’m not disagreeing with the heart being key. But I would like to point out that Paul also said “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28; cf. 1Cor 12:13 and Col 3:11). So what applies to one, now applies to all.
MUSLIM TERRORISTS - This is not an extreme case of my example, though I can see why it would seem so. I specifically described someone who loved the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, and mind, and loved their neighbor as themself. Jesus Himself said that the law, the law He came to fulfill, rests on these commandments. Terrorism is about as far from loving your neighbor as themself as one can get!
We come back to motivation: the motivation is that they love God, and are doing this in service to Him. They believe that they are talking to the God of Abraham when they pray.
It’s not a good idea to take Jesus out of these teachings: watch the movie Time Changer for a very good (if sci-fi) example of this. Therefore, I would still have to say that Jesus, and knowing Him, should be involved in this (even if you’re heart is in the right place).
ARTICLE 1 - I agree with this quote, “It is foolish to debate the fairness of God sending someone to hell who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel of Christ. People are responsible to God for what God has already revealed to them.”
I stand behind that quote 100%. 150%, even!
If you think I believe that everyone who doesn’t hear of Jesus will go to heaven, I do not believe that.
I didn’t think that.
I believe that those who accept everything God has revealed to them will go to heaven… and that God doesn’t necessarily reveal the doctrine of Jesus, Cross, and resurrection to everyone.
I think he charged us with that responsibility. Missions, evangelism, and things of that nature are of extreme importance!
ARTICLE 2 - I agree with this statement, “We can, to a certain extent, know God through His creation (Rom. 1:21).”
I would hope so, since it comes from the Bible. I don’t want to have to dust off the inerrancy notes!
But then, the author goes on to say that the work is not complete until God reveals Jesus to this person through evangelism. I don’t think you can have it both ways. Well, if the person’s not saved until He’s actually led to the cross, then I do not think you can say he knew God at all until then.
Our hypothetical seeker knew that God was there, that there was a supernatural Greater Being out there. He just didn’t know the entire nature of this being. This is where the evangelist comes in, to teach the seeker about the saving grace of Jesus.
For those that were seekers and never knew the name of Jesus, we must trust God to decide their fate.
The first article made the point that we shouldn’t be arguing about stuff like this, and I agree. My point is not to argue. My point is that I risk being called “not a Christian” by my fellow Christians because I do not believe God necessarily reveals the doctrine of Jesus, Cross, and resurrection to every person He enters a loving relationship with.
I wouldn’t call you “not a Christian.” I’d just say that you have a different belief sturcture that downplays the importance of missionary work and evangelism. Debate is the meat and potatoes of those called into apologetics. I wouldn’t call this an arguement by any means; I would call it a debate and these are important.
Every person who is saved has the law written on their hearts. Jeremiah prophesied it, and Paul recorded it. You can be deaf, dumb, and blind from birth, and still have the law written on your heart… it is then up to you to accept it or reject it, to love God or to hate Him. Everyone must make the choice.
Agreed.
One last way to put this… the people I’m talking of would confess Jesus with their mouths if they learned of Him. They would lay their lives at the cross if they realized the cross was there.
Only God could know that one way or the other. Back to my original point to trust Him to judge the unevangelized!
They would rejoice at the resurrection if they realized Jesus had conquered their sin. I am talking of no other. You can argue that such people will always be given the name of Jesus to confess, and will always be told of the cross and the resurrection.
I would argue just that. Good anticipation!
God certainly could do it, but I haven’t seen the proof yet…
And probably won’t, this side of heaven. Goes back to that whole “faith” thing.
the fact that Gods sends missionaries (as the second article argues) isn’t proof…
It is evidence, though!
but God does command us to evangelize. For those we help save, it is quite certainly part of God’s will and plan.
Then let’s follow the command to evangelize! Let’s order our Chick tracts and leave them in every public restroom from here to Chicago.
Actually, let’s not. Chick’s paranoid delusions about the Catholic Church keep creeping into those silly little things.
I apologize for the length of this!
Don’t worry about it… It was interesting to think about and fun to respond to!
I don’t disagree with everything that you have to say. I don’t have all of the answers to this crazy life that we lead. If you’re view is true, then good for those people that do honestly seek God and discover enough about Him to go to heaven.
But, if my view is true, then we need to reach those souls that would otherwise go to hell just because they were never given the opportunity to call upon the name of Jesus. Evangelism is part of our responsibility as Christians. Your view, while having many valid points, downplays the importance of evangelism and missionary work.
People just can’t get to God on their own. They must seek Jesus; and to do that, they must know about Jesus. That is our responsibility in the new convenant. My greatest burden as a Christian is that these people aren’t going to hell because God is mean, it’s because I’m not doing enough to reach these people!
The blame isn’t on God. The blame is on us.
His response:
One statement you made gets to the crux of our difference: “For those that were seekers and never knew the name of Jesus, we must trust God to decide their fate.”I admit that I do not know their fate for sure. Either they all go to Hell, or some do and some don’t. If they all go to Hell, then it is imperative for us to reach, not just as many as possible, but every single person. If we miss just one person, he or she will go to Hell, and yet our failure to reach them does not keep us from getting into Heaven… why not?If a person’s salvation is utterly dependent on the obedience of the church to evangelize them, then why did Christ die? Why place another person’s salvation in the hands of my obedience, when the very reason for Christ’s death is my disobedience? Why place it in my obedience when salvation is by God’s grace through **that** person’s faith, not his (or any other man’s) works? Is a person incapable of faith before hearing of Jesus?“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17). And, so it does. But can one find faith any other way?“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1) Can one have such faith before hearing of Jesus? Well, God could give someone such assurance if He chose. Would He?“…let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith…” (Hebrews 12:2) If God did give someone faith who had not heard of Jesus, then we know that Jesus would the author and perfector of that faith. Could He author and perfect someone’s faith who did not know His name?Before Jesus died, the answer was yes. Hebrews 11 is filled with examples, and Paul even writes of Abraham’s faith in Romans 4. But, if that is not when it stopped, then when? When Jesus died? When He rose? When He ascended into Heaven to be at His Father’s right hand?In the book of Acts, Paul and others spent years spreading the gospel. Surely, these missionary journeys were the first time countless people had ever heard of Jesus. What of those people who died between the time Jesus ascended and the time the apostles reached them? Did no one die? Did they all go to Hell? If they all went to Hell, was Paul too slow? Or did God touch the hearts of those who’d receive Him, because He knew that Paul’s arrival (or Timothy’s or Peters) wasn’t for another few years?Supposing God touched a few of those hearts, because the bodies they were in weren’t going to last. Would that make the Apostles’ missionary trips any less urgent? You seem to think it would. I don’t think so.I consider missionary trips every bit as important and urgent as you do, even while understanding the temptation to discount such trips because God could reach them without us. But, the reason for the urgency is not because God has rested the salvation of the world on our shoulders. It’s already on Christ’s! He doesn’t need us… but He chooses to use us, and we must humbly accept the mission, lest we be found disobedient… not lest someone goes to Hell.Let me draw a parallel with one of Paul’s teachings. Paul spends part of Romans explaining that freedom from the law is not a license to sin. Yet legally, our sins do not matter anymore, because they are forgiven. The temptation at this point is usually to envision the most horrible sin one could commit… murder, treason, or even worse, cursing God, and asking if that’s really what Paul means. But, going to that extreme misses the point. The point is that we now fall under the rule of faith. Our material fleshly actions, which is what the law judges, will no longer condemn us to Hell, even while the heart in which we break (or even follow!) the law might in fact condemn us to Hell. In fact, for those living in faith, freedom from the law paradoxically results in us following it the way it was truly intended! There is a parralel here. If we say that because we must evangelize to save people, therefore only evangelism will save them, then in my opinion, we have taken Christ out of the picture, and relegated Him to just a word (as opposed to The Word). But, we know that’s not true. Just as I do not advocate committing a sin just because it’s already forgiven, I do not advocate leaving someone unevangelized just because God can reach out to those we miss.BTW, the concept of God picking up our slack when we fall short. I wrote about it on another website here: http://www.geocities.com/israeltour/20000407Hebrews9TheTemple.html (ignore the “share your thoughts” link at the bottom… it’s just spam at this point)The gist of it is that the Israelites in the desert couldn’t gather the right amount of manna (1 omer per family), but when they measured it, it measured exactly right! The reason is because God made it measure correctly. I view the church as being under the command to gather an omer of manna (i.e., evangelize, and present it to the Lord). But, even if we gather less (i.e., don’t evangelize everyone), when we present our offering faithfully to God, we’ll find He picked up our slack.
These are my concluding remarks. I had to cut the debate, lively though it was, short in order to continue with other projects.
I’ve let my debate with Geocreationism.com’s webmaster sit on the back burner for a while due to family obligations and holiday fun. I have so little time to maintain and grow this ministry that I would like to move on to other projects, so I offer this blog entry as my concluding remarks in this informal debate.It is extremely difficult to accept that God would damn a person to Hell for simply never having heard the name of Jesus Christ. But is that the only reason that He is consigning them to an eternity of separation? Let us consider a few points on that topic.First, the apostle Paul teaches that men are “without excuse,” that is, “altogether without any defense or justification” for not noticing that this world is the handiwork of God (Rom 1:20). The Psalmist tells us that “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows and proclaims His handiwork” (Ps 19:1). These verses tell us that we can know God through His creation. More than that, creation implies Creator; we have no reason not to know this!Second, King David pronounces that
The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there were any who understood, dealt wisely, and sought after God, inquiring for and of Him and requiring Him [of vital necessity]. They are all gone aside, they have all together become filthy; there is none that does good or right, no, not one. [Ps 14:2-3]
The apostle Paul echoes this sentiment: “all have sinned and are falling short of the honor and glory which God bestows and receives” (Rom 3:23). Paul says elsewhere that
when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened. [Rom 1:21]
The Bible’s clear teaching is that we can know God exists by the evidence He has left in His creation (Rom 1:21, Ps 19:1). But, we don’t seek God; we often don’t seek anything beyond creation itself (cf. Rom 1:23, 25). This has become ever more true with the advent of Dawinism and scientific materialism.
Geo is upset that these people are being damned simply for not knowing the name of Jesus. But that is not true. These folks, though they can know God to some extent through His creation, do not seek Him. This is the clear teaching of the Bible. Those who have never heard are simply not seeking Him. As an infinitely holy and just God, God must punish these folks (Ps 51:4), too.
If, and that’s a strong if, there is someone honestly seeking God, I believe that God will reveal to this hypothetical individual all he needs to know for salvation and unity with God eternally in Heaven (Jer 32:19, Zec 1:6). God knows all (Is 40:13-14), He never forgets (Is 49:15), and His thoughts are greater than our own (Is 55:8-9). Who are we to question His judgements (Rom 9:20)? We should rest easy, knowing that His judgement, whatever it may be, will be fair.
Geo’s closing remarks:
I have enjoyed the interchange!If I wasn’t clear before, I agree with you 100% that people who are seeking God will find Him, and those who don’t seek Him will be damned. I never meant to imply people are admitted to Heaven on the grounds of their ignorance, for a true seeker will not remain ignorant.My only point is that when God reveals Himself to someone seeking Him, He might not reveal that Jesus is His name. He might not reveal the Trinity, or the Crucifixion, or the Resurrection. On the other hand though, He just might! So if I am wrong, then it means God always reveals Jesus, His name, the Trinity, and the Resurrection to all who seek Him, even to someone deaf, dumb, and blind, and stuck alone on a desert island without a bible. But whatever God reveals, the seeker will be held accountable for it, and will have no excuse.As you so eloquently stated in your closing, “We should rest easy, knowing that His judgement, whatever it may be, will be fair.” Amen!
