I thought this movie was cute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68

While cute, I believe it points out some glaring inconsistencies we must accept as true if entry into heaven were determined solely on faith in the Christian God. These are some of the same questions C.S. Lewis wrestled with and answered not only through his non-fiction writings but his works in "The Chronicles of Narnia".

Of course, you've heard this before, but I'll repeat it because it's easy to type and I'm just going to do a short synopsis of the argument.

Lewis states that all good acts are attributed to the Christian God no matter who you worship, if you worship any God at all. A good deed is a good deed, and a bad deed is a bad deed. In this way, I believe he's stating that good men who served another God on Earth gain entry into heaven as they were unknowingly serving the Christian God while bad men cannot gain entry just by pleading faith in Jesus Christ for their evil acts were made to "Tash", the other God Lewis used. Tash = Satan? Maybe.

What is defined as good would probably be a good second thread.

I'm sorry.  Somehow I missed this thread when it was first opened.  I only found it because I decided that I should look at all the threads under "Bruce's Corner" to make sure I was aware of everything that had been written there.  Obviously, it was a good thing.

Second, this is a difficult question for me to answer.  I know the orthodox answer, but I still have some questions which I can not reconcile, and C. S. Lewis (as so well noted by moosemaster) has raised some of those questions for me.

For example, the verse you quote from Acts 4:12 is one that has been used to proclaim the exclusivity of faith in Christ as a precursor for entering Heaven.  However, it is interesting to note that the phrase "for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved' was not original with either Peter (who was talking here) or Jesus.  The phrase was first conceived by Julius Caesar (I believe) at the time that the Roman Senate declared Caesar to be divine.  At that time the phrase was "There is no other name under heaven by which a man may be saved but Caesar's".  This was one of the "laws" that conquered lands had to memorize and repeat upon demand.  It was meant to establish the lordship of Caesar.  Was Peter then making a statement about the Lordship of Jesus Christ or was he making a statement about the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ?  There is some room for dialog on the exact intent and meaning of Peter's statement.

But as you point out there are other verses which, if not exactly saying the same thing, seem to imply the same thing.  So there may still be basis for the exclusivity belief.

And then you have the problem of what if a person never heard of Jesus Christ ... ... ... and you have answers such as C. S. Lewis who basically summed up his conclusion in the statement "We know that all people will be saved by the name of Jesus.  We just don't know if they have to know the name before they die."  I like it.  I'm just don't know if I can agree or disagree with it.

Abraham didn't have faith in Jesus and yet his "faith was counted as righteousness" and all faiths believe he is in heaven.  In fact, Jesus said he was.  Some theologians reconcile this with the statement that Abraham was "looking forward" to a savior.  But that is a stretch (or maybe not).

I also wonder if it makes a difference if someone knew the name of Jesus and rejected His offer of free grace before they died.  Can they then accept the name afterward?  That bothers me, really bothers me.

This I do know, firmly believe, and do teach.  I know that if you do have a faith in Jesus Christ and have determined in your heart to follow His teachings and conform your life to His model as the Spirit enables, then your salvation is secure and you will enter the "blessings" prepared for the afterlife.  And I know and teach that more than that, Jesus enables us to have an intimate, personal relationship with God that not only benefits the life hereafter, but enriches this life also.  I know of no other religion or system of beliefs that will do this or claim to do this as part of their creed.  This alone, to me, makes the decision to at least try to see if the claims of Christ are for real or not worth seriously investigating.

I am willing to discuss further if any one wants to continue this dialog.

Interesting set of verses to pick.  However, most theologians believe that this is a judgment of the nations and not of individuals.  As such, the "least of these" are not human beings in general, but those who are Christ-Followers.  This would then be a judgment on how the government and cultures treated Christians in their midst.  However, the destination of those judged lends complication to this interpretation.  Yet if you make this individuals, then we are saved by works (intended or not), and that would make this contrary to other teachings of both Jesus and the Apostles.

I've included a copy of the meanings and controversy of this passage below along with a commentary in how most conservative theologians reconcile the passage.

Commentary on "all the nathions"

The meaning of ?all the nations? here is much disputed. In his encyclopedic survey of the interpretation of this pericope, S. W. Gray tabulates the following conclusions concerning the meaning of this phrase in descending order of popularity: (1) all human beings; (2) all Christians; (3) all non-Christians and non-Jews; (4) all non-Christians; and (5) all non-Jews (thus Allen; Brandenburger). Options 3, 4, and 5 understand the word τὰ ἔθνη as referring to the ?heathen,? in the sense of those who are not God?s people (cf. Friedrich; Court; Garland; Lambrecht; Harrington, who points to the expectation of a particular judgment of the Gentiles in the apocalyptic literature), with conclusions varying depending on how the latter is understood. There are no clear markers in the text to indicate that any group is excluded (cf. 24:30), and, moreover, there are earlier indications in the Gospel that point to the future judgment of Christians (e.g., 7:21?23; 16:27). The second option is based in part on the difficulty of understanding the judgment of non-Christians by standards of which they are ignorant (see G. Gay). The basis for judgment, however, may not be deeds of mercy in general but only deeds that are indications of response to the message of the Gospel. The first option has the advantage of being consistent with the universality of the same phrase in 28:19, which includes both Gentiles and Jews (see Comment on that verse). The interpretation of ?the nations? in the present passage is closely related to the interpretation of ?the least of these my brothers? in v. 40 (cf. v. 45). See further Comment on that verse.

Commentary on "the least of these"

There is much disagreement about the meaning of the phrase ?the least of these my brothers.? From Gray?s survey of the options, we may list the following, in descending order of popularity: (1) everyone, i.e., particularly the needy among humankind; (2) all Christians; (3) Christian missionaries; and (4) Jewish Christians. The fourth option takes the word ?brothers? too literally and therefore restricts it too narrowly to those Christians who are physically Jews. The distinction between options 2 and 3 is a small one, unless one insists in option 3 upon ?missionary? in the technical sense of the term (thus Court, Gundry) as opposed to Christians generally?all of whom in some sense represent the Gospel (cf. 10:32). Nothing specific in the passage or context supports the speculation of Maddox that Christian leaders are intended. The real choice is between the first two options. The use of τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου, ?my brothers,? makes it almost certain that the statement refers not to human beings in general but rather to brothers and sisters of the Christian community. Elsewhere in the Gospel it is consistently the disciples whom Jesus calls ?my brothers? (12:48?49; 28:10; see too 23:8; outside Matthew, see John 20:17; Rom 8:29; Heb 2:11?12). Although ἐλάχιστος, ?least,? is used elsewhere in Matthew to refer to persons only in 5:19, the true counterpart to the phrase ?one of these least? is found in Matthew?s distinctive οἱ μικροί, ?the little ones? (of which ἐλάχιστος, ?least,? is the superlative), a phrase used by Matthew to refer to disciples generally (see 18:6, 10, 14, where the subject is also Christian treatment of Christians; see Winandy). A confirmation of the correctness of this conclusion is found in the use of the phrase in a sentence that makes much the same point as the present passage: ?Whoever gives one of these little ones [ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν τούτων] a drink [ποτίσῃ, same verb as in the present passage] of cold water in the name of a disciple, truly I tell you, will in no wise lose his [her] reward? (10:42). This follows a statement about the identification of master and disciple that is very much in line with the thought of the present pericope: ?The one who receives you receives me, and the one who receives me receives the one who sent me? (10:40). H. B. Green (206) not unjustly describes the present passage as ?an extended dramatization? of 10:42 (see too Cope; Ingelaere). An intriguing OT antecedent is found in Prov 19:17: ?Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord and will be paid in full.? See too the rabbinic parallel in Midr. Tanḥuma on Deut 15:9: ?My children, when you gave food to the poor I counted it as though you had given it to me? (see Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 207).

Commentary on the passage as a whole

The time of the great judgment wherein the righteous and the unrighteous are finally separated will arrive with the glorious coming of the Son of Man. All the nations of the world?that is, every individual of those nations?are to be judged on the basis of their treatment of disciples of Jesus. This perhaps surprising statement points at once to the unique relation between Jesus and those who follow him and to the supreme importance of the mission and message of the church to the world. To treat the disciple, the bringer and representative of the gospel, with deeds of kindness is in effect to have so treated Jesus. Conversely, to fail to meet the needs of the Christian missionary is to fail to meet the needs of Jesus. There is thus a most remarkable bond of solidarity between Jesus and his disciples. Although disciples are naturally also called to do good to all people (cf. 9:13; 12:7), deeds of kindness must begin with brothers and sisters of the faith, with the church (cf. Gal 6:10).

Although sometimes understood as confirming a salvation by works, this passage need not be understood as incompatible with the gospel of the kingdom as a divine gift. The apostle Paul, the champion of grace, can also stress the significance of good works (see esp. Gal 6:7?10; 2 Cor 5:10). Matthew does stress the importance of righteousness as good deeds, but as a part of a larger context in which God acts graciously for the salvation of his people (see Hagner, Matthew 1?13, lxi?lxiii and Comment on 5:20). The deeds of mercy in the present passage are symbolic of a deeper reality, and as Gray notes, ?the main point of the parable is the acceptance or the rejection of the Christian faith? (353; cf. 359). For a balanced and helpful discussion of this problem, see esp. C. L. Mitton.