Do agnostics go to hell?

[CS1]

Being born again is a decision God makes
We are not capable of "birthing " ourselves
Therefore
An Agnostic may be in process- we don't know and can't judge
Our job is to pray for mercy and share the Gospel

God doesn't force one to be saved. you must fully surrender to him when HE calls you. The idea we birth ourselves is false. FYI You can't change the context of what an Agnostic is to be a PC water down we all are in the process. the word has a meaning

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.


This is like a type of Postmodernism movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason

the agnostic will not accept the idea of a God fully because there will never be enough proof of a god.

To say that is not a judgment is not judgment it is the context of the word.
Those who are unlearned about God are just that unlearned. An Agnostic is not claiming ignorance they are claiming it can't be known. beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

 

[Jocund]

God doesn't force one to be saved. you must fully surrender to him when HE calls you. The idea we birth ourselves is false. FYI You can't change the context of what an Agnostic is to be a PC water down we all are in the process. the word has a meaning

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.


This is like a type of Postmodernism movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason

the agnostic will not accept the idea of a God fully because there will never be enough proof of a god.

To say that is not a judgment is not judgment it is the context of the word.
Those who are unlearned about God are just that unlearned. An Agnostic is not claiming ignorance they are claiming it can't be known. beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

I suggest you find a better dictionary.

 

[CS1]

Teenagers aren't cognitively accountable? Many churches disagree with that opinion as they allow confirmation in the early teens (or younger).



I never said doubt would necessarily make Christians agnostic. But someone that calls themselves agnostic isn't necessarily not Christian.



A person with mixed feelings (like an angst-filled teenager) does believe - but may also have opposing beliefs at the same time. How does anyone accurately categorise someone with mixed feelings without fully knowing their heart as Christ does?



My concern is more for the angsty teenager bit and the best approach to bringing a rebellious spirit fully back into the love of Christ. Or a young adult. Or any troubled person of faith. Telling someone with mixed feelings that they are going to hell (without true certainty of that statement) seems like the wrong approach. The intention is correct. It just feels like the wrong approach to me. Especially if someone has lost a child (at any age) that had trouble in their faith. How ghastly to have someone preach that their child is bound to hell (when that statement is not a proven Biblical truth). God will be the judge of that.

when a teenager comes to me and tells me " I am agnostic" I ask them what is that? I have yet to have 13- 17 years old or many 19 years for that matter tell me what it is correctly. It is a cop-out like when you tell someone about Jesus and they say I'm catholic. a false defense mechanism to stop the conversation or a way to be inclusive in the discussion.

 

[CS1]

I suggest you find a better dictionary.

You can suggest anything you want watering done the meaning is not what we should be doing. and agnostic is not a term of endearment. The webster is just fine for that term thank you very much.

 

[Funkus]

I would like to see that Scripture verse. I do recall ones about being as a child, but a baby?

Yes you're right it is 'as a child', but babies are children, i think the point is that innocence carries some weight with God and even the world recognises it when any time a child suffers for any reason it is seen as worse. God is very wonderful more than could ever be expressed in words i haven't the slightest concern about babies being in hell that's how the enemy tries to throw up a roadblock in our minds. knock it down in faith and praise his holy name instead. that's my attitude but i'm very wayward, i dont really fit in here at all. i'm a heretic

 

[Jocund]

when a teenager comes to me and tells me " I am agnostic" I ask them what is that? I have yet to have 13- 17 years old or many 19 years for that matter tell me what it is correctly. It is a cop-out like when you tell someone about Jesus and they say I'm catholic. a false defense mechanism to stop the conversation or a way to be inclusive in the discussion.

Please research what lexicography is.

 

[Magenta]

... someone that calls themselves agnostic isn't necessarily not Christian.

 

[CS1]

Please research what lexicography is.

lol if you want to have a dictionary debate please seek a different thread, however, if you were not approving of Webster's definition of the word Agnostic, please let's look at the theological definition given to us in most Bible school's and seminaries, shall we?



"from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable” strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience." ( University College London )


The term has come to be equated in popular parlance with skepticism about religious questions in general and in particular with the rejection of traditional Christian beliefs under the impact of modern scientific thought.

Historically

The word agnosticism was first publicly coined in 1869 at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in London by T.H. Huxley, a British biologist and champion of the Darwinian theory of evolution.


Now In "word used " you should start with the origin of the word not how you feel it should be applied. T.H Huxley was known as Darwin's bull Dog. He was an evolutionist, like Dawkins.


A term that was used in its origin to dismiss the belief in God is not today a term of those who are unlearned and undecided due to immaturity of the lack of experience and imperial evidence.

Agnosticism is a branch off of evolution stemming from Atheism. You can water down the term ignore the person who is known to use it first if you like.

 

[CS1]

Please research what lexicography is.

Now please do your homework and do not suggest others have not when clearly you did not.

Thank you.

 

[CS1]

The Answer is right from the mouth of Jesus himself.
John 3:3
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born -again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”


John3:16-17

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

many stops at that verses but Jesus went on to say :

:18
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

amen

 

[Jocund]

dictionary debate ... Webster's

The meaning of agnosticism is very relevant to this discussion. "Webster's" isn't a trademark, anyone can write a dictionary and add Webster's in its name. Ask your local lexicographer.

"from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable” strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience." ( University College London )

Encyclopedia Britannica, excellent choice! This source is scholarly. Here's the link to the article that you have referenced from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism.

I encourage you to read the whole article. It's a good source. There are sections that explain different types of agnosticism including atheistic agnosticism and Christian agnosticism.

The word agnosticism was first publicly coined in 1869 at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in London by T.H. Huxley, ... you should start with the origin of the word not how you feel it should be applied.

That's not how language works, but I will try to be patient with you. Here's an example: someone that is a Lutheran is not required to follow everything that Martin Luther believed in order to be a Lutheran. The term, "Lutheran", is descriptive of a school of thought and not prescriptive. The meaning of one who is Lutheran changes over time and between congregations (with some things fundamentally in common). A person that coins a term or pioneers a term is not the sole stakeholder of that term.

Even if you believe that a pioneer of a term should be the sole stakeholder, you might be interested to hear that according to the article you referenced, Huxley's position included the idea of Christian agnosticism:

"Huxley himself allowed for the possibility of an agnosticism that was in these senses religious—even Christian—as opposed to atheist." - Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism#ref38258

Agnosticism [stems from] Atheism. You can water down the term ignore the person who is known to use it first if you like ... Now please do your homework and do not suggest others have not when clearly you did not.

I'm going to assume you were having a bad day. I'm going to assume picking fights is your defence mechanism when someone challenges your assumptions. Don't be like that. I'm a believer in the idea that cooler heads prevail. Let's help each other understand the other.

"Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee." - Proverbs 9:8

A term that was used in its origin to dismiss the belief in God is not today a term of those who are unlearned and undecided due to immaturity of the lack of experience and [empirical] evidence.

Immature people call themselves lots of names without knowing any better. "Agnostic", "atheist", etc... labels are superficial. The heart and soul and mind are what matter. A person can call themselves "atheist" without actually being an atheist at heart. A person can call themselves Christian without actually having their heart in Christ. It's complicated and I don't understand why anyone would think it is not complicated. Why should we judge someone else by their heart which we cannot see?

"Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind," - Colossian 2:18

Peace be with you.

 

[CS1]

The meaning of agnosticism is very relevant to this discussion. "Webster's" isn't a trademark, anyone can write a dictionary and add Webster's in its name. Ask your local lexicographer.



Encyclopedia Britannica, excellent choice! This source is scholarly. Here's the link to the article that you have referenced from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism.

I encourage you to read the whole article. It's a good source. There are sections that explain different types of agnosticism including atheistic agnosticism and Christian agnosticism.



That's not how language works, but I will try to be patient with you. Here's an example: someone that is a Lutheran is not required to follow everything that Martin Luther believed in order to be a Lutheran. The term, "Lutheran", is descriptive of a school of thought and not prescriptive. The meaning of one who is Lutheran changes over time and between congregations (with some things fundamentally in common). A person that coins a term or pioneers a term is not the sole stakeholder of that term.

Even if you believe that a pioneer of a term should be the sole stakeholder, you might be interested to hear that according to the article you referenced, Huxley's position included the idea of Christian agnosticism:

"Huxley himself allowed for the possibility of an agnosticism that was in these senses religious—even Christian—as opposed to atheist." - Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism#ref38258



I'm going to assume you were having a bad day. I'm going to assume picking fights is your defence mechanism when someone challenges your assumptions. Don't be like that. I'm a believer in the idea that cooler heads prevail. Let's help each other understand the other.

"Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee." - Proverbs 9:8



Immature people call themselves lots of names without knowing any better. "Agnostic", "atheist", etc... labels are superficial. The heart and soul and mind are what matter. A person can call themselves "atheist" without actually being an atheist at heart. A person can call themselves Christian without actually having their heart in Christ. It's complicated and I don't understand why anyone would think it is not complicated. Why should we judge someone else by their heart which we cannot see?

"Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind," - Colossian 2:18

Peace be with you.

I am fine please don't assume,
maybe it is just you and I disagree with your presupposition and opinion. Maybe you just do not accept the point I made in context to the origin of Agnostic. Either way, I am not losing any sleep over it. I love your type as many here do try to place false judgment by using scripture like a sheriff. LOl, it is not judgment it is telling the truth. Today those who want to silence anyone who will not agree with them will like most snowflakes and liberals name call

you are judging, or Don't judge, your this or say one has a phobia.

thank you.

 

[Platosgal]

God doesn't force one to be saved. you must fully surrender to him when HE calls you. The idea we birth ourselves is false. FYI You can't change the context of what an Agnostic is to be a PC water down we all are in the process. the word has a meaning

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.


This is like a type of Postmodernism movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason

the agnostic will not accept the idea of a God fully because there will never be enough proof of a god.

To say that is not a judgment is not judgment it is the context of the word.
Those who are unlearned about God are just that unlearned. An Agnostic is not claiming ignorance they are claiming it can't be known. beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Most people who call themselves
Agnostic do not share thay definition
Most will say they just do not know what to believe
However
God is the one who determines
Who HE will draw to Jesus

See John 6

A christian can only pray for mercy toward the unbeliever
And share the gospel

 

[crossnote]

Do agnostics go to hell?

It takes faith in Jesus.
"Not knowing or not sure" is not faith.
But...God can save an agnostic through opening their eyes to the truth of the Gospel.
I know, He saved me.

 

[CS1]

Most people who call themselves
Agnostic do not share thay definition
Most will say they just do not know what to believe
However
God is the one who determines
Who HE will draw to Jesus

See John 6

A christian can only pray for mercy toward the unbeliever
And share the gospel

I have a few questions for you, let's say

you call yourself a " gay Christian "

It has been years since the origin of the term "Christian" has been understood or even kept.

Is it judgment to say to one, they can not be a Christian and gay? Or is the "gay Christian" a form of truth today because "Most people" who are gay today will not abandon being gay to become a Christian?

So we change the actual meaning of the word to fit our own truth. That is what many do with the word of God today.


Most people who call themselves Agnostic today to not share the actual definition because that would be seen as unbiblical and they would not be accepted, so the secular needs to water it down. Any word today can be what I want it to be because it fits my false narrative and remove the shame of sin.

We as Christians are to judge and speak the truth in love.

There is no such thing as a gay Christian they are not saved in the sin they are saved from their sin.


Those who say they are agnostic and think it means they are half right with God but half not, is Deception.

That idea is taking people to hell in masses. Jesus said I have come to testify of the truth.

Most people who call themselves
An agnostic can have a form of godliness yet still deny the power of God.

 

[Lafftur]

Do agnostics go to hell?

Yes, agnostics go to hell BUT, hell is NOT the second death..... in hell, they still have a chance because Jesus Christ has the keys to death and hades (hell)...

The SAME RULE applies....ONLY Jesus Christ can deliver and save a soul in hell and from hell.

 

[crossnote]

Yes, agnostics go to hell BUT, hell is NOT the second death..... in hell, they still have a chance because Jesus Christ has the keys to death and hades (hell)...

I always learned, you live, then die, then judgment. No 2nd chance after you die...

Hebrews 9:27 (KJV) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

 

[Jocund]

Yes, agnostics go to hell BUT, hell is NOT the second death..... in hell, they still have a chance because Jesus Christ has the keys to death and hades (hell)...

The SAME RULE applies....ONLY Jesus Christ can deliver and save a soul in hell and from hell.

From what I can see in scripture, this interpretation is on point. Hebrews 9:27 speaks of judgement after death and Revelations 20:11-15 places that judgement after the inhabitants of hell are brought out (before hell is cast into the lake of fire). Thank you for sharing that perspective

 

[Lafftur]

I always learned, you live, then die, then judgment. No 2nd chance after you die...

Hebrews 9:27 (KJV) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Not so, we need The Holy Spirit to teach us. What you learned is what man taught you.

Open your heart and mind, do NOT let pride interfere; ask the Holy Spirit to teach you The Word of God....He is The Spirit of Truth, there is NO error in Him.

 

[TheIndianGirl]

Yes, agnostics go to hell BUT, hell is NOT the second death..... in hell, they still have a chance because Jesus Christ has the keys to death and hades (hell)...

The SAME RULE applies....ONLY Jesus Christ can deliver and save a soul in hell and from hell.

Where does it say that agnostics after another chance after death? This is not the traditional view.