So, I have this question about the issue of salvation. I often ask this to my Christian friends and they have no response for it, or at least none that really makes sense to me.

According to most Christians I've talked to, they describe God and his laws as eternal and unchanging. Okay, gotcha.

Now, in order to be saved, one must be accept Jesus Christ as his lord and savior. Okay, that's fine, too.

The question I ask, assuming the above two statements are true, is how are people who were born before Jesus' time considered to be saved? I mean, there was no Jesus then (well, I guess there was ALWAYS Jesus, but you know what I mean), so how would someone who was alive before Jesus going to be saved? Did they have a different set of requirements in order to be saved back then? Maybe they were all just screwed... Or did God's laws just change all of a sudden?

As I'm typing this, I just realized that I think I read before that when Jesus was sacrificed, he went down to Hell and allowed everyone there a chance at redemption. I'm guessing first of all, that hell must have been a pretty crowded place considering that maybe .0000001% of the population in the OT had a chance to meet God and be saved right? Secondly, isn't hell supposed to a place of ETERNAL torment and suffering? Well, I guess it isn't eternal for all those people who chose to accept Jesus when he went down there right? Finally, what does this mean for us? Does that mean that we can still get out of hell if we somehow ended up there?

If someone could please provide me with an explanation, I'd greatly appreciate it.

That's an awful lot of separate questions with a lot of different answers depending on which denomination of Christianity you ask. A comprehensive/detailed answer to all that would fill a book, or maybe more than one.

I'm still going to give it a shot because I'm bored, just know that this is definitely the bastardized version of all these answers.

Note I'm assuming with all these answers you mean, "according to Christians." Jews and Muslims would have very different answers for some of these.

Prior to Jesus' coming, Jews made ritual animal sacrifice which cleansed them of their sin (thus making them effectively "sinless" which is the requirement to get into heaven). Once Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, those sacrifices were no longer necessary. So in this case, God's standard of morality didn't really change, just the method by which people atone for their sins.

Jesus went to hell to endure the punishment for mankind, but he wasn't down there picking up converts.

Yeah, most people are ****ed. Some protestant denominations try to add the loophole that if someone never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus they're "off the hook" so to speak, but that's not the common view. By far the standard view is, "**** em, they're in hell."

The common view is, nope, once you're there, you're ****ed. No way out, just sit there and be sad forever. Occasionally some theologian will come along and argue that either people don't go to hell for not believing (they're just obliterated) or they have some chance after death to "opt in" to heaven instead of hell by choosing to believe after death, but those guys usually get chewed up and spit out by religious conservatives.

By far the common view is: If you've ever committed any sin, you go to hell. Also, literally everyone sins. You can get forgiven your sins and still go to heaven, by believing in Jesus and accepting his sacrifice for you. If you don't, you go to hell, and once you're there, you're stuck there forever.

Personally that strikes me as a convoluted, ineffective, and incredibly overly-vindictive system, but I tried to keep my editorializing out of the explanation as much as possible.

Thanks for the response. I do remember the blood sacrifice thing...

It would seem then that if one didn't want to accept Jesus as their saviour and instead just sacrificed small woodland creatures once a week (or day, or whatever) then one would be saved?

But hasn't it been said that Jesus is the ONLY way? Said none other by Jesus himself? Was he mistaken or did the rules change after he came about?

The method changed, yes. The common response is that Jesus is the completion of Old Testament prophecy and Old Testament Jews knew a savior was coming, and the animal sacrifice was sort of a "temporary fix" while they were waiting for Jesus to show up.

The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, generally referred to as the atonement, is the basis for forgiveness of sins and justification:


The method is always by faith:

Since Christ, the normal method is faith in Jesus as a response to the gospel, but most theologians don't exclude other methods similar to OT times, for places where the gospel hasn't been preached - but it is still, as with Abraham, faith in God.

Just a comment on your statement that Jesus went to hell to endure punishment. The Scriptures don't say this, it says he went to "Hades" to preach to those there. (1 Peter 3:18-20). Hades/Sheol is a place where souls are awaiting judgement.

Fair enough. As I said in my original post, there's enough on all those topics to fill a book. What exactly Jesus was up to between the time he died on the cross and the time of his resurrection has a ton of variation between denominations.

Generally speaking though, most denominations don't believe Jesus was gaining converts in hell. At best, some denominations believe no one got into heaven prior to Jesus' death, and he went down there to bust out everyone who was on Team Jesus beforehand but had to wait around in hell until after he died on the cross.

Some extra reading:

http://catholicexchange.com/did-jesus-really-go-to-hell

Overun great questions.

Salvation in the simplest verses from the Word of God. This is Paul speaking to the Corinthians, who have received Salvation by Faith. This message basically applies to all Christians today as Paul only wrote to those who were of the Body of Christ (saved Christians).

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

The penalty of Sin is death (eternal death in hell). That sin was paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ. He loved all of us so much he sacrificed himself for the sake of our Salvation.

Remember, Abraham's faith in God was accounted for righteousness. And remember, it was God who opened up Abraham's heart (God's plan) just as it is God/Jesus Christ who open's the hearts of men today to receive the gospel. It is by our own free will whether or not we choose to believe it. Abraham's last test was the sacrifice of his son Isaac, and Abraham just knew (by faith) that he just had to obey because he believed that it was part of God's plan. We have a sovereign God!

I used to be in mutiple denominations (roman catholic, presbyterian, baptist), I now don't attend any church and I've done a lot of bible study asking similar questions as yourself over the last year and a half. The Holy Spirit guided me through it all of course. I urge you to check out this website and will answer all your basic questions and has great bible study audio sermons. Likewise, Les Feldick has a gift of teaching God's Word's its truly a message of Grace. God bless you!

http://www.lesfeldick.org/

Prior to Jesus there was Hades (Hell), and Paradise. Paradise is where Old Testament believers went while waiting on the Messiah to free them. Those in Hell were not going to have another chance. Remember Lazarus and the rich man? There was Gulf between them. After Jesus died he went to Hell, paid the price for our sins, then went to Paradise to take all of the Old Testament saints with Him to Heaven. Remember the thief on the cross that Jesus said today I will see you in Paradise (not Hell).

No. The concept of hell as we know it didn't exist in the Old Testament. The Hebrew uses the word "sheol" which just means grave. All people went there, the righteous and the unrighteous.

Jacob was there (Gen. 37.35, 42.38, 44.29, 31). Righteous Job also longed for it in Job 14.13. David spoke of going to sheol in Ps. 49.15 and Jesus went there, Ps. 16.10 and Acts 2.24-31.

The "parable" of Lazarus and the rich man is not a historical narrative, and is not about eternal punishment at all.

Can you explain on this further?

Sorry but parables did not have real names attached to them. This story did. But even if it was fiction what is the purpose of the story but to show there was a Paradise. When Jesus rose from the dead it says many others came out of the grave as well and walked into town. When He ascended to Heaven in Acts He rose with a cloud. That cloud was people. Because the Angel said He would return the same way He left. The Word says when He returns He will have all the Believers with Him. It is not complicated.

Literal or figurative millennial reign?

Well He did not rise into Heaven figuratively, because they were all standing there watching Him. He will return physically at the end of the seven year tribulation. He will have all of us believers with Him. I can't wait!

This is unquestionably a parable. Jesus took a known folk story of the time, and created a twist on it, to make a point. Jesus is making ironical use of popular and Pharisaic lore. This is not a story which Jesus has made up “from scratch”. He is using a story the Pharisees themselves might have used, but turning it against them. There is a consensus about this amongst scholars.

“In this parable Jesus is using a familiar folk-tale and adapting it to a new purpose by adding an unfamiliar twist to the end of it.The story of the wicked rich man and the pious poor man, whose fortunes were reversed in the afterlife, seems to have come originally from Egypt, and was popular among Jewish teachers.The picture of the fate in store for the good and the evil after death is also drawn from traditional Jewish sources…”

G. B. Caird, Saint Luke, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd, 1968, p.191 [↩]

“The general motif of this story found its way into Jewish lore, and it is attested in some seven versions.”

I H Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1979, p.633

“Probably…a parable which made use of current Jewish thinking and is not intended to teach anything about the state of the dead.”

G. E. Ladd, “Eschatology”, in The New Bible Dictionary, 1963, p.388.


Further reading:

http://www.afterlife.co.nz/2009/theo...n-and-lazarus/

https://adventistbiblicalresearch.or...s/luke-1619-31

http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/0...al-punishment/

FesteringZit,

Thanks, I've been reading about the conditionalism perspective, have visited rethinking hell a number of times.

Quick game of devil's advocate - When something is a parable, it doesn't mean that parts of the parable are false, necessarily. Take a less complicated parable, say the sower and the seeds. The story explains the nature of belief and disbelief proportionate to how the message is received (rocky soil, thorns) what it doesn't mean is that people don't actually literally sow or reap in the fields or that there are no thorns or rocky soil. All of the parts of the story are true, and all the things do exist. You don't need to eliminate the existence of farmers and soil simply because it is a parable. - How would you respond to that?

Also, do you have any references to the idea that this story was a popular story when Jesus told it?

Don't misunderstand me, not antagonizing you, just looking for clarity.

The folk story known at the time that Jesus draws from included a rich man named Bar Ma'Jan, if you do a google search with that name, you'll get a bunch of hits.

"The story was later brought into Palestine by Alexandrian Jews, where it became popular as the story of the poor scholar and a rich tax collector named Bar Ma’jan. After the two men died, one of the poor scholar’s colleagues had a dream in which he was allowed to see the fate of the two men in the next world – the poor scholar was in “gardens of paradisal beauty, watered by flowing streams.” Bar Ma’jan, however, was standing on the bank of a stream trying to reach the water, but was unable to do so.

In the original story, the religious leaders would have identified with the poor scholar, since they also were “scholars” who prided themselves on their knowledge of Moses and the prophets. They would have looked down with marked disdain on the tax collector in the familiar story who they considered a great sinner simply by virtue of his occupation.

In an absolutely brilliant move, however, Jesus turns the tables on his listeners and identifies them not with the hero in the story, but with the villain. The religious leaders were the ones in the parable who were rich in this world’s goods, and proud in the eyes of God! "


http://blogs.christianpost.com/engag...-lazarus-8404/

Very good, I'll have a look.

I'd like to hear a little more detail of this view. Do you believe that Jesus will literally live on earth for 1000 years, and all believers will sit on literal thrones on earth?

I disagree, but no matter. What does this have to do with salvation. Are you saying there is no eternal Hell? Also no other parable uses a real persons name. I only use the Bible for my foundation, I can not use what some other author thinks is an explanation. If you are saying there is no Hell then we are wasting our time. Way too much evidence in the Bible and I could never convince you anyway. It appears your mind is made up and I have learned that never makes for a good discussion. If you will seek the Truth He will reveal it to you.

That is my belief. Not sure about believers sitting on thrones. I believe believers will have assignments and we will be working. Also Satan will be loosed after that thousand years and millions will align with him. Hard for me to grasp that but that's what it says.

Not to speak for festeringZit, but he has stated he believes in the conditional view of hell, that your soul is annihilated, not that you suffer eternal torture.

That seems like a strange view to me, although I'm no expert on eschatology, not even close to it.

For one, won't it be difficult to reject Christ when he's already King and that he is alive on earth for 1000 years? Like, "I didn't believe in Christ, but the dude has been alive for hundreds of years, I think there's something to him after all..."

If I'm not mistaken, it says he will sit on a throne with the believers (or which ever group they are referring to, possibly a select group of believers). Again, this seems very unlikely to me, and I think it makes more sense as a figurative idea. Like Satan is the prince of this world, and he is figuratively on a throne, but he's not literally walking around town, or literally sitting on a throne where you can see him.

Edit: Welcome to the forum btw, good to have you aboard.

That is the view of Jehovah Witnesses as well. But they forget we are made in God's image. Three in one. We are a Spirit (who we are), we have a soul (our mind, will, and emotions), and we live in a body. The body will die and will be resurrected to be like Jesus's current body. Our Spirit can not die. Our Spirit currently longs to be reconnected with God's Spirit. God gave us a free will. We choose to spend eternity with God or we choose to spend eternity without God. If we choose to reject Jesus then He allows us to go to what we call Hell. Some people have a hard time with that fact. If there was no Hell then why not get rich by selling drugs and screwing around then die and be like a dead dog in the road. We can only pray for people to truly seek the Truth.

The bolded is debatable, and one of the points that conditionalism makes, that we are not inherently eternal, but we must gain eternal life. John 3:16 says whoever believes in him will be given eternal life, meaning we do not yet have it. The question is what does not having eternal life look like. Is it the destruction of the soul, as in non-existence, or a continual destruction?

Just playing devil's advocate here.