(no subject)
So I've been re-reading some of the old Christian books I had bought back when I became baptized.
Looking at it now - through different eyes - some of what I have read seems distubring, and even nonsensical.
Take for instance, this passage from "The Complete Book of Bible Answers" by Ron Rhodes, where he addresses the issue of those who have not heard the gospel message:
"Because all human beings can see the revelation of God in creation - all people - regardless of whether they've heard about Christ or have read the bible - are held accountable before God. All are without excuse. Their rightful condemnation as objects of God's wrath, is justified because of their choice to ignore the revelation of God in creation is indefensible (see Psalm 19:1-6, Romans 1:20)
I find this explanation absurd at best. So what this guy is saying is that - even if a person has never heard the gospel of Christ, they will still be sent to hell? And it's their fault?? Well pardon me for my blasphemy, but I really fail to see how a person in some farout country deserves punishment because they cannot see the revelation of God in nature. Furthermore, even if they did, and they ultimately choose to worship the "wrong" God because their search did not lead to hearing the gospel, they are still deserving of eternal damnation. And this is considered justifiable? No, I'm sorry, to me it's not. I refuse to believe that a person can be sent to hell for not accepting a God they don't even know exists.
The passages the author gives IMO do not support this argument. Psalms 19:1-6 explains that the heavens declare the glory of God, and they pour out knowledge upon the earth. But again, just because someone sees God's work in nature, doesn't necessarily mean they will choose the "right" God, or will even be aware that it is of God. What about the atheists? They see nature as a result millions of years of scientific evolution. Nothing more. What about the early pagans? They were one of the 1st people to "see" God displayed in creation, but the God they worshipped was/is not the biblical concept of God. Looking at Romans 1:20 in context, it is clear that the people in question were already aware of God but chose to be disobediant. They are punished because of their disobediance, not for their lack of awareness of the gospel message.
In light of of all this, it certainly does not seem "right" or "justifiable" to hold a person responsible for having never heard the gospel, or for believing in God but just not the "correct" one.
*Please, if you disagree with me and feel the need to give me a lecture about why I'm wrong, just don't. Because you are likely not going to change my mind, and I'm not interested in any kind of debate or alternative viewpoints at the moment. Not trying to be rude, I just needed a place to vent. That's all. Thanks. :)
Looking at it now - through different eyes - some of what I have read seems distubring, and even nonsensical.
Take for instance, this passage from "The Complete Book of Bible Answers" by Ron Rhodes, where he addresses the issue of those who have not heard the gospel message:
"Because all human beings can see the revelation of God in creation - all people - regardless of whether they've heard about Christ or have read the bible - are held accountable before God. All are without excuse. Their rightful condemnation as objects of God's wrath, is justified because of their choice to ignore the revelation of God in creation is indefensible (see Psalm 19:1-6, Romans 1:20)
I find this explanation absurd at best. So what this guy is saying is that - even if a person has never heard the gospel of Christ, they will still be sent to hell? And it's their fault?? Well pardon me for my blasphemy, but I really fail to see how a person in some farout country deserves punishment because they cannot see the revelation of God in nature. Furthermore, even if they did, and they ultimately choose to worship the "wrong" God because their search did not lead to hearing the gospel, they are still deserving of eternal damnation. And this is considered justifiable? No, I'm sorry, to me it's not. I refuse to believe that a person can be sent to hell for not accepting a God they don't even know exists.
The passages the author gives IMO do not support this argument. Psalms 19:1-6 explains that the heavens declare the glory of God, and they pour out knowledge upon the earth. But again, just because someone sees God's work in nature, doesn't necessarily mean they will choose the "right" God, or will even be aware that it is of God. What about the atheists? They see nature as a result millions of years of scientific evolution. Nothing more. What about the early pagans? They were one of the 1st people to "see" God displayed in creation, but the God they worshipped was/is not the biblical concept of God. Looking at Romans 1:20 in context, it is clear that the people in question were already aware of God but chose to be disobediant. They are punished because of their disobediance, not for their lack of awareness of the gospel message.
In light of of all this, it certainly does not seem "right" or "justifiable" to hold a person responsible for having never heard the gospel, or for believing in God but just not the "correct" one.
*Please, if you disagree with me and feel the need to give me a lecture about why I'm wrong, just don't. Because you are likely not going to change my mind, and I'm not interested in any kind of debate or alternative viewpoints at the moment. Not trying to be rude, I just needed a place to vent. That's all. Thanks. :)