Thread: Purgatory: Is Jesus Christ the Only Way of Salvation? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001021
Posted by universalist (# 10318) on
:
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"--Jesus. Was Jesus intention to polarize? Was the central claim of Jesus that he is the only way, the only truth and the only life? It seems that there is a "Yes" and a "No" to the question. Possibly, the following might be helpful:
Jesus is more a "nature" than a "name." Jesus was not insisting that all believe on his "name" phonetically, but rather, that all would believe in the essential good nature of God. That "good nature" is inclusive and never exclusive. Jesus was not insisting that people believe a lot of hard to believe things about himself; rather, he was encouraging everyone to love, believe and embrace the various good character attributes of God.
The apostle Paul spoke of "Gentiles" who knew nothing about Christianity and Christ, but were relating implicitly to Jesus "by nature", spirit and attitude (Romans 2:14). Jesus himself also seemed to validate this concept. His disciples encountered other spiritual people who, by nature, were doing a valid spiritual work and yet not a part of the "in" group. They became jealous and territorial, ran to Jesus to "tattle" on one of these: "Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us."
But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in my name can soon afterward speak evil of me. For he who is not against us is on our side. For whoever gives you a cup of cold water to drink in my name (nature), because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward" (Mark 9:38-41).
Many today, not knowing or "accepting" the "name" of Jesus, are none the less bearing witness to his nature as they pursue the good works of loving God and serving others. There are many paths up the mountain, but the view on top is the same--AA saying.
[edited thread title for archiving]
[ 10. January 2006, 04:45: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
Jesus is more a "nature" than a "name." Jesus was not insisting that all believe on his "name" phonetically, but rather, that all would believe in the essential good nature of God. That "good nature" is inclusive and never exclusive. Jesus was not insisting that people believe a lot of hard to believe things about himself; rather, he was encouraging everyone to love, believe and embrace the various good character attributes of God.
And how exactly did you come by this knowledge?
Posted by universalist (# 10318) on
:
"By their fruits you shall know them..."
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
I don't see how that connects.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Perhaps becauuse it's Jesus saying that how people act (ie their fruits) may just matter more than which specific set of beliefs they hold to?
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
Oh but it SOUNDS so good, doesn't it?
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on
:
Maybe it means that both are required?
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
To answer the OP more directly by responding to the question in the title while bypassing the very specific body of text, my answer would be yes.
I think Jesus says he is the Way + Truth + Life (WT&L) and that he most certainly means it--even if you wanted to assert that he may not have uttered those exact words, it seems to be a concept that the gospel writers picked up on and tried to convey.
However, here's an interesting follow-up question:
If Jesus IS the only WT&L, what does that necessarily infer?
We make hundreds of unwarranted inferences from this rather enigmatic statement by Jesus, in my opinion.
-Digory
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
Jesus is more a "nature" than a "name." Jesus was not insisting that all believe on his "name" phonetically, but rather, that all would believe in the essential good nature of God.
In my tradition, Jesus is the Divine Truth. His mission was the mission of Divine Truth. This is why He is the Word.
No one comes to God except through the truth. It's that simple.
The harder part is that only Jesus teaches that truth.
Still, to the extent that people anywhere in any religious tradition believe what is true, to that extent they come to God.
So what Jesus said is both quite specific and quite universal.
I don't think that it is about believing in the good nature of God, but rather about rejecting false and harmful things and accepting what is true and right.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
The idea that "No one comes to the Father except through me" -- a favorite prooftext of the turn-or-burn folks -- is not the same as saying, "No one comes to the Father except by believing 'X' number of intellectual propositions about me." I believe that Jesus Christ has effected salvation for humankind, and I think that, of course, as Christians we always want to, as a friend of mine puts it, "say the least wrong things about God" -- but I don't believe that one earns salvation by affirming the right set of creedal statements about Jesus Christ. Salvation isn't a catechism exam.
Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on
:
The truth is a person. Jesus is that person. So yes, people can only come to God the Father (who is a person) through Jesus (who is a person) by the power of the Spirit of Truth (who is a person). If you want to participate in the essence of God (who is a person) you need to come to Him in the way that he has ordained.
Posted by universalist (# 10318) on
:
One who "sees" God in ones heart cannot help but produce good fruit. I think that Jesus would be more concerned that individuals would "hear his voice" than that they would "accept his name."
"And other sheep I have which are not of this fold..." These would be those to whom Paul referred, Gentiles who "by nature do those things contained in the law", not knowing of Christianity or Jesus.
It could also refer to those of Jesus' time who did not know Jesus by name, nor were they "saved" Christians, but none the less cast out demons in my "name" (nature). Whereas the disciples questioned their spiritual authenticity (like we would tend to do), Jesus fully accepted them.
bob (www.godquest.org)
Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on
:
References for this?
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
Bob, are you actually having a dialogue here, or are you promoting your website?
I apologise if that question seems a little blunt, but I'm genuinely curious.
For my part, I believe that the cited text means that no-one is saved, except through Jesus. It tells us nothing about who Jesus will save. Someone whose religious beliefs are utterly different to mine or yours could still be saved through Jesus. And I'm not going to attempt to say who is and is not saved. Ever.
T.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
For my part, I believe that the cited text means that no-one is saved, except through Jesus. It tells us nothing about who Jesus will save.
Or how.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I agree with Teufelchen and Mousethief.
God is in charge of the salvation business -- the "who" and the "how."
Posted by whitelaughter (# 10611) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
Jesus is more a "nature" than a "name."
How about "Jesus is a human being"?
Is theory really necessary? There *might* be people on this planet who has never met Jesus, but they'd have to be very young and/or very sheltered. When did you feed, clothe or visit Jesus? Matthew 25 is pretty straightforward.
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
The truth is a person. Jesus is that person. So yes, people can only come to God the Father (who is a person) through Jesus (who is a person) by the power of the Spirit of Truth (who is a person). If you want to participate in the essence of God (who is a person) you need to come to Him in the way that he has ordained.
This is the sort of opinion that makes it difficult (if not impossible) for me to accept Christianity as a living path to God. The truth is not "a person". God is not "a person". The power of the Spirit of Truth is not "a person". I don't "need" to come to "Him" in the way that YOU have ordained.
This type of blunt conviction in the form of textual misrepresentation with no apparent reverence for the meaning behind the platitudes espoused does more to drive seekers away from the truth than attract them.
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
For my part, I believe that the cited text means that no-one is saved, except through Jesus. It tells us nothing about who Jesus will save.
Or how.
To both of you, I say, "Preach on."
Great stuff.
-Digory
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
Well I can see the confusion with the one verse cited. But on clear reading of John, there are lots of other helpful hints. Like this one from John 3:
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
Now this one is talking about the person rather than the method of salvation.
This one I think is more pertinent still (1John 5):
"Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son."
I would find it helpful if the universalists would give verses which suggest the opposite of this rather than taking us on mystery tours around the possible alternative meanings of seemingly obvious scripts.
Love,
Evo1
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
I would like to add to the above some hope.
From experience, when I have said things like the above, others have said things like, "So I suppose you just write off everyone else who doesn't believe in Jesus as the Son of God".
What nonsense this is. None of us knows which of us will be enabled by God to love Jesus - whether past present or future. To point anyone out and say, "what about them, they are not a Christian, what do you say about them" in my mind is quite wrong. It is just not up to us to say who will or will not accept Christ in the end.
I am so glad that people did not give up on me.
Love,
Evo1
Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
The truth is a person. Jesus is that person. So yes, people can only come to God the Father (who is a person) through Jesus (who is a person) by the power of the Spirit of Truth (who is a person). If you want to participate in the essence of God (who is a person) you need to come to Him in the way that he has ordained.
This is the sort of opinion that makes it difficult (if not impossible) for me to accept Christianity as a living path to God. The truth is not "a person". God is not "a person". The power of the Spirit of Truth is not "a person". I don't "need" to come to "Him" in the way that YOU have ordained.
This type of blunt conviction in the form of textual misrepresentation with no apparent reverence for the meaning behind the platitudes espoused does more to drive seekers away from the truth than attract them.
It's got two edges. Anyway, who ever said that truth was attractive? Cockroaches scatter when the light is turned on...
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
The construction my former rector put on the "noone comes to the Father except by me" was that Jesus is the gatekeeper, the WT&L. And nothing more or less than that. Not "you must be Christian, and by that I mean belonging to an Approved Church of modern America, or you will be damned" What that means for us is that we are not the gatekeeper -- we do not know who, Christian or otherwise will be saved, it's above our pay grade. We are to get about His business of loving himself and loving him in others and he takes care of the saved/not saved thing.
Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I agree with Teufelchen and Mousethief.
God is in charge of the salvation business -- the "who" and the "how."
That sounds a bit like 'Calvinism' to me. I'm sure that Mousethief will distance himself from that faster than... well, quite quickly.
[ 14. November 2005, 08:51: Message edited by: m.t_tomb ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
The truth is a person. Jesus is that person. So yes, people can only come to God the Father (who is a person) through Jesus (who is a person) by the power of the Spirit of Truth (who is a person). If you want to participate in the essence of God (who is a person) you need to come to Him in the way that he has ordained.
This is the sort of opinion that makes it difficult (if not impossible) for me to accept Christianity as a living path to God. The truth is not "a person". God is not "a person". The power of the Spirit of Truth is not "a person". I don't "need" to come to "Him" in the way that YOU have ordained.
This type of blunt conviction in the form of textual misrepresentation with no apparent reverence for the meaning behind the platitudes espoused does more to drive seekers away from the truth than attract them.
I don't think you'll find anything in the Gospels that hint at Jesus making it easy for anyone to believe or follow him - quite the opposite in fact.
The gate is strait (restricted), the road is narrow, there is a cross to take up, a self to deny, riches to give away, the 'dead' to leave behind.
Even the disciples were shocked 'Who then can be saved?'
'With men it's impossible, but with God all things are possible.' was the Lord's reply.
We have tried 'easy-believism' and the church ahs declined dramtically. Perhaps now we should be brave enough (from a marketing point of view) to say, "The Lord doesn't want followers who find it easy - only the 'brave' need apply."
I'm sorry, but Christian faith and salvation is not an easy philosophy to follow. If you want that, join a local society, or the rotary.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
The construction my former rector put on the "noone comes to the Father except by me" was that Jesus is the gatekeeper, the WT&L. And nothing more or less than that. Not "you must be Christian, and by that I mean belonging to an Approved Church of modern America, or you will be damned" What that means for us is that we are not the gatekeeper -- we do not know who, Christian or otherwise will be saved, it's above our pay grade. We are to get about His business of loving himself and loving him in others and he takes care of the saved/not saved thing.
With all the dross that I see in this place, I sometimes wonder why I keep coming back. Then I see posts like this, and I say to myself, oh, yeah, I remember.
Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on
:
I think that Jesus' words in this instance must be understood in Trinitarian terms. He is talking about the fact that he and the Father are so intimately related to each other (and implicit in this statement comes the Spirit as the bond of love) that to 'come to' one is to meet the other.
We can't take the Reality of God's triune nature and say. 'Well, OK, For Christians God's like that but for Hindus or Muslims or Atheists he isn't.' God is not triune because we say he is; we say he's triune because he is. Jesus is God. To come to the Father means meeting Jesus.
So yes, in some respects the paths do all lead up the mountain. But it's Jesus who'll be waiting for everyone at the top. I'm sorry, but IMO, you simply can't change that fact. You simply can't meet God without meeting Jesus, because that is who God is.
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
So yes, in some respects the paths do all lead up the mountain. But it's Jesus who'll be waiting for everyone at the top. I'm sorry, but IMO, you simply can't change that fact. You simply can't meet God without meeting Jesus, because that is who God is.
So anyone who subscribes to a belief in "god" would then, by this definition, already believe in Jesus whether they say so or not?
Interesting twist, perhaps?
-Digory
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evo1:
But on clear reading of John, there are lots of other helpful hints. Like this one from John 3:
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
Now this one is talking about the person rather than the method of salvation.
<snip>
I would find it helpful if the universalists would give verses which suggest the opposite of this rather than taking us on mystery tours around the possible alternative meanings of seemingly obvious scripts.
I would at the very first take issue with "clear reading of John" and "seemingly obvious scripts."
That being said, expand your first passage to the following:
quote:
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
Jesus is talking to Nicodemus, who is a Pharisee. Go here to see the full text. Pharisees believed they were saved by the righteousness they'd amassed, that by being good people and subscribing fully to the Law, they were living within the fold of God and were thus in one sense saved.
Some would like a verse that would say otherwise, as you ask for Evo? What about verse 17 directly before the one you quoted? God sent his Son to save the world through him. Jesus stresses to Nicodemus that he should begin to accept this new teaching as hard as it will be to swallow. For if you do not believe in grace, you will not live in it, and you will not experience its effects in the now.
Where in this passage is Jesus saying that those who "do not believe" will spend eternity in Hell?
Our problem is not just misinterpreting passages--it's linking up passages that do not belong together.
-Digory
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
[QB] quote:
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
Some would like a verse that would say otherwise, as you ask for Evo? What about verse 17 directly before the one you quoted?
And you can read that to say that everyone will be saved regardless of their acknowledgement of Jesus can you?
quote:
God sent his Son to save the world through him.
That's right, that's what I've been saying - to save through Jesus - what's your point.
quote:
Jesus stresses to Nicodemus that he should begin to accept this new teaching as hard as it will be to swallow. For if you do not believe in grace, you will not live in it, and you will not experience its effects in the now.
Where in this passage is Jesus saying that those who "do not believe" will spend eternity in Hell?
The very next verse tells us that those who do not believe in Jesus (and elsewhere numerous times) stand condemned already. I don't want to play another round of "oh well, what does this actually mean" thank you very much. As I said, it is as clear as crystal.
Love,
Evo1
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evo1:
I don't want to play another round of "oh well, what does this actually mean" thank you very much. As I said, it is as clear as crystal.
Then unfortunately this discussion is pretty much finished. Don't see much of a point of any discussion at all, with that attitude.
-Digory
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
To anyone who would still like to discuss this issue:
Point 1 - Jesus is the only WT&L.
Point 2 - WT&L can only be accessed by doing/saying/praying/believing x.
Point 3 - X is supported by scriptures a, b and c.
It's a fallacy to argue that these points are all based upon each other. Because Jesus claims to be the only WT&L does not say anything about HOW to get to Jesus, as Mousethief and Teufelchen pointed out before.
So before we start introducing other Scriptures, we have to be ready to realize that the traditional understanding of those passages may not be exactly correct, since our usual interpreters were operating under the assumptions that prove certain points already.
In the John 3 passage above, why couldn't condemnation be referring to earthly condemnation rather than eternal condemnation? I'm not saying it definitely does, but it's sad to see people so easily dismiss a valid suggestion.
-Digory
Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Jesus is the gatekeeper
I like this image. I haven't heard it before, but it is a good one imo.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evo1:
"Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son."
I would find it helpful if the universalists would give verses which suggest the opposite of this rather than taking us on mystery tours around the possible alternative meanings of seemingly obvious scripts.
Maybe we should take a short detour to make some useful distinctions between types of universalism. This blog post might help.
In short, meanings of 'universalist' include:
* Everyone is saved by Jesus regardless of their personal faith (Strong Christocentric Universalism)
* Everyone will believe in Jesus and thus be saved through him (Weak Christocentric Universalism)
* Everyone will be saved regardless of Jesus because of God's love (Pluralistic Universalism)
Note that a Hindu or Muslim is/will be saved under all of these.
Carry on.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Jesus is the gatekeeper
I like this image. I haven't heard it before, but it is a good one imo.
What do gatekeepers do? As a metaphor it is a bit unclear to me, because I don't know any gatekeepers.
Do they keep the gate clean and tidy? Or are they more like bouncers?
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
I'm not a universalist, then, because I don't believe we can say with assurance that everyone will be saved. There are plenty of texts to suggest not. However, I am something of a pluralist, if that's the word, since I believe that one can be saved by following God's will, without being identifiably Christian.
T.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I'm not a universalist, then, because I don't believe we can say with assurance that everyone will be saved. There are plenty of texts to suggest not. However, I am something of a pluralist, if that's the word, since I believe that one can be saved by following God's will, without being identifiably Christian.
We need a lexicon! Maybe you are a Works-Based Pluralist? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I agree with Teufelchen and Mousethief.
God is in charge of the salvation business -- the "who" and the "how."
That sounds a bit like 'Calvinism' to me. I'm sure that Mousethief will distance himself from that faster than... well, quite quickly.
I don't even need to post any more to defend my position or say what I agree or disagree with; m.t_tomb will do it for me. Leaving me free to make sarcastic one-liners. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Jesus is the gatekeeper
I like this image. I haven't heard it before, but it is a good one imo.
Jesus also said he was the door.
In the middle eastern context, the sheep were placed at night in a walled pen. There was no door, it was just a gap in the fence/wall. At night the shepherd was sit/lie in that gap so that anyone (or any sheep) that wanted to enter the sheepfold would have to actually and literally step over the shepherd to get in.
In other words, to get into heaven you have to consciously and deliberately encounter Jesus who is the door to heaven.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Evo1:
"Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son."
I would find it helpful if the universalists would give verses which suggest the opposite of this rather than taking us on mystery tours around the possible alternative meanings of seemingly obvious scripts.
Maybe we should take a short detour to make some useful distinctions between types of universalism. This blog post might help.
In short, meanings of 'universalist' include:
* Everyone is saved by Jesus regardless of their personal faith (Strong Christocentric Universalism)
* Everyone will believe in Jesus and thus be saved through him (Weak Christocentric Universalism)
* Everyone will be saved regardless of Jesus because of God's love (Pluralistic Universalism)
Note that a Hindu or Muslim is/will be saved under all of these.
Carry on.
And according to the witness of Jesus himself, the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and pastoral epistles and the book of revelation, none of these is actually true.
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And according to the witness of Jesus himself, the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and pastoral epistles and the book of revelation, none of these is actually true.
Hear Hear
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Jesus is the gatekeeper
I like this image. I haven't heard it before, but it is a good one imo.
Jesus also said he was the door.
In the middle eastern context, the sheep were placed at night in a walled pen. There was no door, it was just a gap in the fence/wall. At night the shepherd was sit/lie in that gap so that anyone (or any sheep) that wanted to enter the sheepfold would have to actually and literally step over the shepherd to get in.
In other words, to get into heaven you have to consciously and deliberately encounter Jesus who is the door to heaven.
Do you accept all the logical implications of that?
Anyone who dies before having the mental furniture to comprehend this concept --> Hell
Anyone too mentally disabled to be able to comprehend this concept --> Hell
Anyone who doesn't get to find out about this door to heaven --> Hell
Anyone who would love to use this door, but cannot summon up the faith to make that step --> Hell
Isn't heaven going to be rather empty?
I might add that I'm going to find heaven particularly empty by this reckoning. Hardly anyone I know or care about is a Christian - just Mrs Backslider, not the Backslideret, by Mudfrog's definition, and a few friends
Very quiet.
[ 15. November 2005, 11:51: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In other words, to get into heaven you have to consciously and deliberately encounter Jesus who is the door to heaven.
quote:
Do you accept all the logical implications of that?
Anyone who dies before having the mental furniture to comprehend this concept --> Hell
Anyone too mentally disabled to be able to comprehend this concept --> Hell
Anyone who doesn't get to find out about this door to heaven --> Hell
Anyone who would love to use this door, but cannot summon up the faith to make that step --> Hell
Isn't heaven going to be rather empty?
I might add that I'm going to find heaven particularly empty by this reckoning. Hardly anyone I know or care about is a Christian - just Mrs Backslider, not the Backslideret, by Mudfrog's definition, and a few friends
Very quiet. [/QB]
How do you know all of this Karl? I wouldn't dare speculate who would or would not accept Jesus in the final reckoning. And as for this idea about being too disabled to accept him, I think you are being rather condascending. Was it Helen Keller, the deaf/blind/mute who, on finaly being taught to communicate said, "I always knew he was there, I just didn't know his name"
Rather than get into the business of grading what you see as disabilities, let's think of the time Jesus called out to Lazarus. How disabled was he? He was dead! But when Jesus called, Lazarus came.
You see, what is disability to you is just a different person to God - they all can hear him - though sometimes they don't. In my experience, it is the most physically able that tend to be spiritually disabled.
Love,
Evo1
[ 15. November 2005, 12:01: Message edited by: Evo1 ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
In what way can babies consciously and deliberately encounter Jesus as the door to heaven? They struggle to consciously and deliberately do anything for the first six months.
I think if we're going to interpret Mudfrog's formula generously enough to allow for that, then it loses all meaning.
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In what way can babies consciously and deliberately encounter Jesus as the door to heaven? They struggle to consciously and deliberately do anything for the first six months.
We are blessed in that it is communication directly between the individual and Jesus, no need for you or anyone else to be a witness to the conversation.
Why do I need to go on, I don't know, but I will. Tests have shown that new born babies recognise there mother's voice from the womb. How much more likely is their spirit to recognise the Spirit of our Lord?
Again, I find it fairly arrogant to insist that this must first pass your approval to count as a real communication.
Love,
Evo1
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I'm not asking to be party to it. I'm asking what possible meaning Mudfrog's "deliberate and conscious" can have here.
MF, as I understand it, has said you have to make a specific, conscious and deliberate decision to go through the door labelled Jesus. I am saying that that concept doesn't have much meaning for people in these categories. Consequently, by MF's definition, these people are all hellbound.
I am perfectly able to accept the concept of God communicating with babies, dead people, people with no hearing or sight etc. etc. What I am pointing out here is that MF's "conscious and deliberate" formula seems to me to imply that one has to say "Ah. Yes. This Jesus person. I've thought about it and I've decided to go along with it"
If MF does mean that, then the people I listed are doomed.
If MF doesn't mean that, I would welcome his clarification.
Either way, I don't see much value in another Karl LB/Evo1 talking past each other match. Especially since you don't seem able to do so without a thinly veiled personal insult in your final paragraph of your post.
[ 15. November 2005, 12:24: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
MF - what of the Sodomians?
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Either way, I don't see much value in another Karl LB/Evo1 talking past each other match.
We are finally agreed on something.
quote:
Especially since you don't seem able to do so without a thinly veiled personal insult in your final paragraph of your post.
I've been here long enough to handle this one: It was your insistance that I found arrogant, not you personally - that goes without saying.
Love,
Evo1
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
In response to the OP, it is highly unlikely that Jesus, as in the historical pre-Easter Jesus, ever said 'I am the way, the truth and the life'. It seems curious, to put it mildly, that the synoptic evangelists, or the apostolic preaching tradition as presented in Acts, or Paul in his letters, saw fit to mention an explicit claim to the divine Name and to salvific uniqueness on the part of Jesus.
Now, I am not denying the importance, or scriptural status, of John's gospel, or of this verse in particular. But we do need to be aware that this text is already theology (as are all the gospels in different ways), we need to read it as such and we shouldn't get tied up worrying 'why did Jesus say that'.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
evo0 to evo1 (I'm evonull too, if any one declares themselves to be evo0), when is, was or shall be the 'final reckoning' for the Sodomians?
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And according to the witness of Jesus himself, the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and pastoral epistles and the book of revelation, none of these is actually true.
Let me modify this so that it's more accurate for our current conversation.
And according to Mudfrog and Evo1's accepted interpretations of the witness of Jesus himself, the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and pastoral epistles and the book of revelation, none of these is actually true.
Just so we're clear...
-Digory
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
evo0 to evo1 (I'm evonull too, if any one declares themselves to be evo0), when is, was or shall be the 'final reckoning' for the Sodomians?
What I meant by that was before the end of their (earthly) lives (unless specifically provided for by the Lord - that's upto him, I'm sure he knows what he's doing ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
)
Love,
Evo1
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evo1:
I wouldn't dare speculate who would or would not accept Jesus in the final reckoning.
So could Jesus provide this WT&L even after physical death?
quote:
let's think of the time Jesus called out to Lazarus. How disabled was he? He was dead! But when Jesus called, Lazarus came.
Does acceptance of this WT&L require Jesus' call, then? If so, why does he not call all of us?
-Digory
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Roger evo1, evo0 here: And he OBVIOUSLY means something beyond your YOUR final reckoning.
And Laura, you tirrible liberal WOMAN you ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by Superslug (# 7024) on
:
How do we know he doesnt call all of us. The Lazarus quote implies it is possible to hear his call even after death.
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Superslug:
How do we know he doesnt call all of us. The Lazarus quote implies it is possible to hear his call even after death.
That's a good point, Super.
-Digory
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Roger evo1, evo0 here: And he OBVIOUSLY means something beyond your YOUR final reckoning.
Oh yes, obviously, I meant to say that I was using this phrase outside of it's normally accepted connotations.
And to PK, as I said, all of these things are to be taken up with him rather than me.
I think Peter mentions something about Jesus preaching to the dead - this could be the Sodomians (is that the same as Sodomites?), who knows.
Why doesn't God call all of us, that's his business too isn't it. I prefer Paul's answer to this type of question, "One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
Our earthy logic cannot comprehend God's wisdom. Soon we will know.
Love,
Evo1
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Superslug:
How do we know he doesnt call all of us. The Lazarus quote implies it is possible to hear his call even after death.
That's one of the reasons I added, "unless specifically provided for by the Lord - that's upto him, I'm sure he knows what he's doing " But why shouldn't this happen for everyone and other issues of fairness - reference Romans 9 above.
Though given Lazarus already had a personal relationship with Jesus, I think it's probable he had already responded to the call.
Love,
Evo1
Posted by Superslug (# 7024) on
:
If it possible to hear the call of God after physical death there is, of course, the possibility that we dont respond to it.
It is more likely, I would suggest, for us to respond with ' I never knew you' than it would be for God. (given that he knew us at the beginning of time, we are told)
Given this, perhaps this is why he gave us the great commission, even if a post death bed call is possible.
Posted by Superslug (# 7024) on
:
Oh Evo1 (I forgot to ask) How soon will we know?, have you been on the direct line again.
If so, please share!
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Superslug:
It is more likely, I would suggest, for us to respond with ' I never knew you' than it would be for God. (given that he knew us at the beginning of time, we are told)
Allow me for once to play the liberal
Where are we told this?
Love,
Evo1
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Superslug:
Oh Evo1 (I forgot to ask) How soon will we know?, have you been on the direct line again.
If so, please share!
Look Super, as soon as I know, you'll know. I can't say fairer than that can I?
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Too late, SS, too late. Dives' parabolic if not fabled call was not to salvation. The characters aren't real and the symbolism Jesus uses conform to the expectations of his audience whatever truths are there. I read from it that there is a point of reprobation which may well be exceeded in this life for some, that reprobate character, like Satan's, can be formed in us.
Posted by Superslug (# 7024) on
:
Which bit?
You are much better at scripture recall than I am.
the ' he knew us from the beginning' bit is scripture isnt it?
And as for the us responding negetively to Gods call even after death bit, just my experiance of my own human pride and massive ego will do for starters.
Posted by Superslug (# 7024) on
:
Martin,
My massive ego does not stop me from falling at the feet of someone with an imensly bigger brain than mine. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I have absolutly no understanding of what you just said. If possible please repost in a way more easily understood by a simpleton such as I.
Oh for a 'whooshes straight over my head' smiley.
SS
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Too late, SS, too late. Dives' parabolic if not fabled call was not to salvation. The characters aren't real and the symbolism Jesus uses conform to the expectations of his audience whatever truths are there. I read from it that there is a point of reprobation which may well be exceeded in this life for some, that reprobate character, like Satan's, can be formed in us.
I think the original reference was to the not-remotely-parabolic raising of Lazarus of Bethany, who very much answered Jesus' call from beyond the grave.
You're the first one to mention Dives.
T.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It's me age, 't'. Well worth pursuing doancha think? What?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
SS - the explanation for a mollusc-brain like yourself is my utter senility.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
Lutheran Chick wrote:
quote:
Salvation isn't a catechism exam.
How very true. I think we are underestimating the importance of names, which were very important to Jesus and His followers. Jesus, in Hebrew is Yahoshua which means Yah (YHWH) saves, or Yah is my saviour. IMO, that's all we are required to believe, that YHWH has ordained this universe for our ultimate salvation and reconcilaition. How? Does it matter?
Probably through Christ's sacrificial death and His resurrection and glorification. But that event didn't only happen on the cross, it became available to us, but the sacrifice of the Word lasts from the foundation of the world until all things are reconciled in Him. So I say with confidence that Yah has saved us and continues to do so.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
But if you and the religion you follow actively rejects the doctrine that Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, what then?
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But if you and the religion you follow actively rejects the doctrine that Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, what then?
Love is patient, love is kind. Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails and God is love.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But if you and the religion you follow actively rejects the doctrine that Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, what then?
Love is patient, love is kind. Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails and God is love.
How does that translate into saving everyone? Simply that God will smile, say "I love you, welcome to heaven"?
Is God love only? Is there no justice, no holiness?
I agree that love is seen on the cross in perfect measure, but is that the main reason for the cross? If there is perfect love shown, but no love returned, then how is there a basis for an eternal relationship?
Love rejected is just that - love rejected.
Eternally.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
But that assumes that really they know that Jesus is God and choose to reject him anyway. Whereas IME what they are rejecting is the intellectual proposition that Jesus was God, not Jesus himself.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I'm trying to see how God's Justice is demonstrated, or His Holiness maintained, by condemning people for guessing wrong the wrong one out of a plethora of equally plausible - or implausible - religions.
Seeing as most people plump for the one most evident in their community, it really comes down to God condemning people for accidents of birth.
Which is neither Just, nor Holy.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
MF - when did, will the Sodomians reject Love = God?
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Love is patient, love is kind. Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails and God is love.
How does that translate into saving everyone?
You appear not to have read the bit about love always protecting, persevering and never failing.
Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
So yes, in some respects the paths do all lead up the mountain. But it's Jesus who'll be waiting for everyone at the top. I'm sorry, but IMO, you simply can't change that fact. You simply can't meet God without meeting Jesus, because that is who God is.
So anyone who subscribes to a belief in "god" would then, by this definition, already believe in Jesus whether they say so or not?
Interesting twist, perhaps?
-Digory
Yes it will be an interesting twist! I think that many who have been serving 'god' - even serving 'Jesus' - will find out that they haven't been when they meet him. But if it is going to be possible for Jesus to tell people who have been doing all kinds of things 'in his name' that he never knew them where does that leave people who have deliberately rejected him? The Parable of the Two Sons springs to mind...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
The question of people who've deliberately and consciously rejected Jesus is actually fairly academic, since I don't know of anyone in that category. I dare say it happens.
What happens far more is that people are shown goodness, love and forgiveness and prefer to carry on in evil, hatred and petty feuding. Perhaps that's actually the more important issue. Doesn't John's Gospel say that the Light illuminates every person, not just those who've heard of Jesus of Nazareth, but people often prefer to reject the light, because they don't like what it says about where they are at the time?
The parable of the two sons makes me think of on the one hand those who do not profess Christianity, but act in accordance with Jesus' teachings, compared with those who do profess Christianity, but are unwilling to have some core darkness changed - insisting on maintaing perhaps petty hatreds, refusing to countenance forgiveness, hoarding their wealth, or whatever?
I know who my money is on seeing in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Is this also what the parable of the wedding feast - the odd bit at the end - is about? People think they can sneak in by professing Christianity, but not being clothed in the right clothing - not having the right attitude to the Light - they find they have no place.
Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on
:
Posted by Karl: quote:
Is this also what the parable of the wedding feast - the odd bit at the end - is about? People think they can sneak in by professing Christianity, but not being clothed in the right clothing - not having the right attitude to the Light - they find they have no place.
There are quite a few NT texts that seem to speak of Jesus himself as some form of clothing. From my perspective I would say that Christians have been 'clothed' in Christ, not just his righteousness (as per the doctrine of imputed righteousness). In other words, a person needs to clothed in Jesus the person to enter the wedding feast. This now begs the question, what does it mean to be 'clothed' in Christ?
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How does that translate into saving everyone? Simply that God will smile, say "I love you, welcome to heaven"?
Sadly, this is some sort of terrible option to the majority of Christians. It sounds absolutely wonderful (and very much like the God I know) to me.
-Digory
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
But if you and the religion you follow actively rejects the doctrine that Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, what then?
Neither my religion nor I activeley reject this. But I still agree with LutheranChick: we aren't doing a catechism for eternal life, we're in a living relationship with our Creator. I totally reject any form of salvation by creed.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
But if you and the religion you follow actively rejects the doctrine that Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, what then?
Neither my religion nor I activeley reject this. But I still agree with LutheranChick: we aren't doing a catechism for eternal life, we're in a living relationship with our Creator. I totally reject any form of salvation by creed.
If Islam rejects the idea that Jesus died on the cross at all, let alone died as the Son of God for our sins,
If Judaism rejects any notion that Yeshua is the Messiah,
then their adherents, in following those teachings, are rejecting Jesus and his atonement through the cross and resurrection.
There is simply no excuse.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
No excuse?
It's a lottery. There are hundreds of religions. You are basically saying that God sees no excuse for picking the wrong one.
And you call it justice.
Go on. Exactly how was Abdul al-Haq, of Kabul, meant to know that Mohummed got it wrong and Jesus got it right? How, exactly?
How do you know that? What if Mohummed did get it right? You're really in the shit if God turns round and uses the same standard of "justice" on you as you've shown here. You'll fry.
It's like saying that there's no excuse for not winning at the lottery. Yes, there were loads of numbers but you should have known which ones would come up.
[ 16. November 2005, 15:36: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
*small cheering noise for Karl*
You spoke my mind, Karl. Well, I wouldn't call religion a total lottery. I'd like to think I'm a Christian and not a Scientologist because I used my brain. But there's a strong element of the postcode lottery about it, yes.
Mudfrog: If Christianity claims John the Baptist as the last prophet; or if it abandons the Law of Moses; or if it insists on the Trinity of God (denied by Islam and Judaism) - what excuse is there for us, before the God of Abraham?
T.
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
Thats what I like about it here, a fresh and novel view of the world every day. A breath of fresh air.
Is this really new news?
Your religion may just be something you picked out of a lucky bag but if that was all there was to it, I'd still be an atheist (glad I'm not).
Love,
Evo1
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evo1:
Your religion may just be something you picked out of a lucky bag but if that was all there was to it, I'd still be an atheist (glad I'm not).
Whereas if I thought that God would condemn someone who acted well towards others, but sincerely believed a false proposition about God, to eternal damnation, I wouldn't be who I am, and I wouldn't be here having this discussion with you.
This debate and its parallels in other threads are causing me to lean more and more towards a universalist, rather than pluralist, position.
T.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
*small cheering noise for Karl*
You spoke my mind, Karl. Well, I wouldn't call religion a total lottery. I'd like to think I'm a Christian and not a Scientologist because I used my brain. But there's a strong element of the postcode lottery about it, yes.
Mudfrog: If Christianity claims John the Baptist as the last prophet; or if it abandons the Law of Moses; or if it insists on the Trinity of God (denied by Islam and Judaism) - what excuse is there for us, before the God of Abraham?
T.
Scripture is clear that "God's 'invisible qualities, both his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all."
The fact that the Qu'ran mentions Jesus and, 600 years after the resurrection, rejects him outright as the Son of God, the crucified and risen Saviour of the world, shows that this isn't a case of 'Oh, we didn't know, sorry.' Have you ever spoken to a Muslim and had their vehement opinion shouted in your face as they verbally and passionately reject the Lord Jesus Christ, his person, his nature, his work on the cross?
This is not a case of, we never had the full details, this is a case of we violently disagree with what yoyu say, Allah is god and Jesus (PBOH) is ONLY a prophet, not the Son of God.
The Jews say he is NOT the Christ.
The Bible says:
"Who then is the liar? It is anyone who says that Jesus is not the Messiah. Such a person is the enemy of Christ - he rejects both the Father and the Son. For whoever rejcts the Son also rejects the Father; whever rejects the Son has the Father also."
1 John 2 v 22, 23
"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Messiah is a child of God."
1 John 5 v 1
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Have you ever spoken to a Muslim and had their vehement opinion shouted in your face as they verbally and passionately reject the Lord Jesus Christ, his person, his nature, his work on the cross?
No. The only religious people who've been that rude to me are Christians and atheists. I've spoken to many Muslims about faith, including some who would most definitely be classed as fundamentalists, and they have always been civil to me. So take your nasty caricatures elsewhere.
T.
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Whereas if I thought that God would condemn someone who acted well towards others, but sincerely believed a false proposition about God, to eternal damnation, I wouldn't be who I am, and I wouldn't be here having this discussion with you.
I find myself agreeing with you T with one problem, I don't know anyone who consistently and continuously and for their entire life has acted well towards others (save one of course). If these mythical characters actually existed, they would have no need of Jesus - in this we are agreed.
Love,
Evo1
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evo1:
I find myself agreeing with you T with one problem, I don't know anyone who consistently and continuously and for their entire life has acted well towards others (save one of course). If these mythical characters actually existed, they would have no need of Jesus - in this we are agreed.
Definitely! I'm not proposing a solely works-based system. Are you suggesting, though, that of two people who do as much good and harm as one another by intent, only the Christian would be saved? No matter how much opportunity to understand the faith correctly each of them had?
T.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Have you ever spoken to a Muslim and had their vehement opinion shouted in your face as they verbally and passionately reject the Lord Jesus Christ, his person, his nature, his work on the cross?
No. The only religious people who've been that rude to me are Christians and atheists. I've spoken to many Muslims about faith, including some who would most definitely be classed as fundamentalists, and they have always been civil to me. So take your nasty caricatures elsewhere.
T.
Hyde Park.
3 young Muslim men v me.
They had copies of the Athanasian creed and were literally surrounding me as they shouted at me, eyeballed me, intimidated me, angrily tried to prove to me that my faith was infidel and wrong. All I could see were three angry faces as near to me as they could be.
These guys had come prepared, looking for a Christian to verbally attack. They were neither universalist nor pluralist, neither tolerant or rational. They were not civil either - and I cannot imagine any group of 3 white Christian men deliberately singling out a Muslim in order to yell at him, whilst pointing to copies of the Qu'ran, that he was the AntiChrist.
It's no charicature.
But it was nasty.
It happens.
[ 16. November 2005, 16:16: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Definitely! I'm not proposing a solely works-based system. Are you suggesting, though, that of two people who do as much good and harm as one another by intent, only the Christian would be saved? No matter how much opportunity to understand the faith correctly each of them had?
T.
No, I can't take the credit for suggesting that. Jesus is the Only Way to salvation - He suggests that, not me. I only believe it.
(Providing of course that by Christian you mean someone that actively believes that Jesus is the Son of God)
Love,
Evo1
[ 16. November 2005, 16:18: Message edited by: Evo1 ]
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I cannot imagine any group of 3 white Christian men deliberately singling out a Muslim in order to yell at him, whilst pointing to copies of the Qu'ran, that he was the AntiChrist.
The Christians are too busy doing this to each other. Check out the 'Why do Catholics get the bigotry' thread if you don't believe me. I've been told I was in league with the AntiChrist by Wee Frees because I attended an ecumenical pilgrimage.
T.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I cannot imagine any group of 3 white Christian men deliberately singling out a Muslim in order to yell at him, whilst pointing to copies of the Qu'ran, that he was the AntiChrist.
The Christians are too busy doing this to each other. Check out the 'Why do Catholics get the bigotry' thread if you don't believe me. I've been told I was in league with the AntiChrist by Wee Frees because I attended an ecumenical pilgrimage.
T.
The Free Presbyterian Church is hardly in the same league as a 1500 year old world wide religion that has as as its basic tenets the false history that Ishmael was the son of promise and was rescued from sacrifice (thus handing the arabs a good excuse for anti-semitism) and the assertion that Jesus never died on the cross and was not the Son of God.
This is a powerful world religion that has in wholesale fashion rejected the history of the Old Testament and the theology of the New - rejecting Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
But Mudfrog - rejecting a person and rejecting an intellectual proposition are two different things. You can't just conflate the two, as you seem to be doing.
Rejecting a person means telling them to sod off. Rejecting a proposition is just a colourful way of saying "not believing it".
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evo1:
I would find it helpful if the universalists would give verses which suggest the opposite of this rather than taking us on mystery tours around the possible alternative meanings of seemingly obvious scripts.
Love,
Evo1
We don't deal in proof-texting verses because we don't use the Bible like that.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
Origianlly posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
then their adherents, in following those teachings, are rejecting Jesus and his atonement through the cross and resurrection.
It seems to me that Mudfrog is aying that "their adherants" (Muslims and Jews) are automatically hellbound for that rejection. Mudfrog, we don't worship the same God. I wouldn't want a part in a system as you envisage it.
Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The question of people who've deliberately and consciously rejected Jesus is actually fairly academic, since I don't know of anyone in that category. I dare say it happens.
What happens far more is that people are shown goodness, love and forgiveness and prefer to carry on in evil, hatred and petty feuding. Perhaps that's actually the more important issue. Doesn't John's Gospel say that the Light illuminates every person, not just those who've heard of Jesus of Nazareth, but people often prefer to reject the light, because they don't like what it says about where they are at the time?
The parable of the two sons makes me think of on the one hand those who do not profess Christianity, but act in accordance with Jesus' teachings, compared with those who do profess Christianity, but are unwilling to have some core darkness changed - insisting on maintaing perhaps petty hatreds, refusing to countenance forgiveness, hoarding their wealth, or whatever?
I know who my money is on seeing in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Is this also what the parable of the wedding feast - the odd bit at the end - is about? People think they can sneak in by professing Christianity, but not being clothed in the right clothing - not having the right attitude to the Light - they find they have no place.
Excellent post, Karl
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Scripture is clear...
Clearly, it's not.
quote:
This is not a case of, we never had the full details, this is a case of we violently disagree with what yoyu say
Do you ever try to "witness" to someone who doesn't believe? Why? Is it because you think they already have the "full details" and you just hope that you can somehow market them into the faith by reminding them of the important parts? I'd guess people try to convert others precisely because they believe these others to not have these allegedly full details. And we are quite prepared to give them to anyone who is willing to listen! In fact, there seems to be quite a rush to do so, because it's believed that if these full details are not disseminated properly before people die, they will end up in hell, apparently for not believing something that they were never given the "full details" of anyway.
quote:
Allah is god and Jesus (PBOH) is ONLY a prophet, not the Son of God.
At least they give our Jesus even THAT much credit. Christians typically write Mohammed off as a thug, a liar or just a general jerk. Most Muslims that I've encountered or read or heard speak tend to respect Jesus very highly, and they sometimes understand his teachings better than a majority of Christians I encounter.
Yes, Jesus can be the only way to salvation---but if he ends up saving everyone, according to their circumstance, isn't he still the Only Way™?
-Digory
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This is not a case of, we never had the full details, this is a case of we violently disagree with what yoyu say
Yes, except those "full details" come to us something like this: "Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Allah is the only way of salvation. Something very profound and Buddhist. Let's just stuff ourselves and get bladdered, for tomorrow we die. Worship me and I will save you through the medium of giving me lots of money. You can't know for sure so it's pointless to speculate." - and we then have to work out which of those statements, if any, is true, either by brainpower or luck.
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We don't deal in proof-texting verses because we don't use the Bible like that.
Hm, that's convenient.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Why do we assume that one's acceptance of Jesus must be in some form approved by a modern Church? If you assume that there are all sorts of ways of "meeting and following Jesus" -- for example, feeding the hungry, or doing good to the extent of one's capacity (in the case of those who are limited by age, capacity, exposure and experience), then you don't have to get into the "what about the retarded Jewish baby?" question.
If Jesus is the Way, then I suspect many of all sorts will at the last hour face Him and be recognized as His own. I suspect there are many "Christians" who will find themselves not recognized. Again, I see no reason to assume that the scripture is saying that only professing Christians will go to the Father.
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
If Jesus is the Way, then I suspect many of all sorts will at the last hour face Him and be recognized as His own. I suspect there are many "Christians" who will find themselves not recognized. Again, I see no reason to assume that the scripture is saying that only professing Christians will go to the Father.
EXACTLY.
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evo1:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We don't deal in proof-texting verses because we don't use the Bible like that.
Hm, that's convenient.
Once again you demonstrate your lack of respect for other people's systems of belief/methods of defending those beliefs.
I hope it's not out of line in Purgatory to gently request that you tone it down a little bit.
-Digory
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
If Jesus is the Way, then I suspect many of all sorts will at the last hour face Him and be recognized as His own. I suspect there are many "Christians" who will find themselves not recognized. Again, I see no reason to assume that the scripture is saying that only professing Christians will go to the Father.
The only possible way this could be seen to be Good News is if the penalty for not being recognised by Jesus is other than eternal torture or separation from God.
Otherwise, you're just making the lottery worse; because you don't know how to avoid hell. Faith? Good works? How many good works? Even if I do have faith and good works, aren't I possibly going to be suprised?
Hear the Good News, brothers! You may or may not be going to hell, we don't know! God knows, but since he's the sort of God who condemns people to hell I suggest you should be very worried!
Praise Be to his Holy Name!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Is there any excuse, Mudfrog, for your biblically illiterate, ignorant (and not just to me), fearful, small minded, mean spirited, racist, sexist, homophobic, classist gracelessness?
Mate?
For your oxymoronic gospel?
Am I the ONLY conservative, fundy, fascist, FUNdaMENTal Christian (who therefore assents to the OP absolutely) here - evo1? - who does not regard mere Christians - the luckiest and most responsible people on earth - as saved in this the only day of salvation?
If evo, fundy, biblically conservative Christianity has to have any external credibility whatsoever beyond its external constituency it must be FULLY biblically honest and not selective, blind, naked and ignorant and JOYLESS, in denial out of what perverse fear I cannot imagine.
Of the better resurrection experience of the inhabitants of Sodom compared to the inhabitants of Bethsaida and Chorazin as proclaimed by JESUS.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Is there any excuse, Mudfrog, for your biblically illiterate, ignorant (and not just to me), fearful, small minded, mean spirited, racist, sexist, homophobic, classist gracelessness?
Mate?
For your oxymoronic gospel?
Am I the ONLY conservative, fundy, fascist, FUNdaMENTal Christian (who therefore assents to the OP absolutely) here - evo1? - who does not regard mere Christians - the luckiest and most responsible people on earth - as saved in this the only day of salvation?
If evo, fundy, biblically conservative Christianity has to have any external credibility whatsoever beyond its external constituency it must be FULLY biblically honest and not selective, blind, naked and ignorant and JOYLESS, in denial out of what perverse fear I cannot imagine.
Of the better resurrection experience of the inhabitants of Sodom compared to the inhabitants of Bethsaida and Chorazin as proclaimed by JESUS.
Where does all that come from??
Where have I suggested I am racist, homophoboic and sexist? Do you know me? Have you had a conversation with me? Have you ever asked me about my opinions on various issues? Do you know my personality and my nature? Do you know my history and my life-story? Do you know what experiences I myself have lived through and dealt with?
Do you hell. So what gives you the right to make these accusations?
Why am I responding to your hatefilled little message?
[ 17. November 2005, 09:10: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Gentlemen I'm sure a host will be along shortly to invite you to take your burgeoning little fight to Hell...
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Ah, a response MF, thank you. I provoke you to good works at last. Your theology is by definition all of those things. Why are you personalizing this? I ask guilefully? What has YOUR theology got to do with you? A psychological question I'm not asking. Much ... Well secondarily to challenging YOUR theology which is NOT complete by a LONG way.
Why won't you respond to Jesus' own statement about the easier resurrection for the inhabitants of Sodom compared with those of Bethsaida and Chorazin?
Why won't you be intellectually honest?
Why CAN'T you be?
Here or hell, it's all the same to me.
What will you do in the resurrection when Jesus puts his arm round the Jews and Moslems and Neanderthals? Pant in expectation of Him hurling them in to the lake of fire? Or throw yourself in when He insists you graciously share eternity with them?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Matthew 11 v 20 - 24
Ah yes, the sin of rejecting Christ when they had ample opportunity to believe. Unlike, of course, the other cities destroyed because of their gross immorality.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Is that it?
So gross immorality up to the point of being nuked means you're better off in the resurrection, what in a better class of Mot'ell, than the Jews? Does that include the Jews who've already been up the chimney once?
[ 17. November 2005, 10:28: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
And does that not give us a reason for not preaching the Gospel: that everyone's OK until they've heard the Good News, but if they hear and then cock up their response to it, they're damned...which sounds more like Bad News to me?
[Etided fro splening]
[ 17. November 2005, 10:31: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Matthew 11 v 20 - 24
Ah yes, the sin of rejecting Christ when they had ample opportunity to believe. Unlike, of course, the other cities destroyed because of their gross immorality.
I think if you look in v.21 you will find that Korazin and Bethsaida committed the sin of not repenting.
Which is, indeed, the same as rejecting Christ, but not the same as rejecting Christianity. One can repent and still not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Matthew 11 v 20 - 24
Ah yes, the sin of rejecting Christ when they had ample opportunity to believe. Unlike, of course, the other cities destroyed because of their gross immorality.
I think if you look in v.21 you will find that Korazin and Bethsaida committed the sin of not repenting.
Which is, indeed, the same as rejecting Christ, but not the same as rejecting Christianity. One can repent and still not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God.
Your logic escapes me.
How can you accept Jesus as Christ but not believe he is God?
[ 17. November 2005, 11:15: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evo1:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We don't deal in proof-texting verses because we don't use the Bible like that.
Hm, that's convenient.
I don't mind playing, although I'm only a hopeful universalist rather than a fully committed one.
1 Tim 2:4 for openers.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How can you accept Jesus as Christ but not believe he is God?
Because there is a difference between accepting or rejecting a person, and accepting or rejecting statements about that person.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Your logic escapes me.
How can you accept Jesus as Christ but not believe he is God?
Well, one way would be to be a Muslim. The Qu'ran states, with clarity which would make Biblical Trinitarians envious, that Jesus was the Messiah, but was a prophet and not divine.
T.
[ETA: Better phrasing]
[ 17. November 2005, 11:37: Message edited by: Teufelchen ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
[Cross-post: to Mudfrog]
Hang on - I see your confusion. By "accepting Christ" I didn't mean "accepting Jesus as Christ" (which is an intellectual acceptance). I meant accepting the second Person of the Godhead, whatever that might mean.
S. Paul in Romans seems quite clear that everyone has the opportunity to accept Him, as you yourself have cited him. Since Christianity has historically only been proclaimed to a minority of the world's population, for S. Paul not to be talking nonsense it must be possible to accept Christ outside Christianity.
[ 17. November 2005, 11:40: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
1 Tim 2:4 for openers.
... states only that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (RSV). Thus we can conclude from scripture that God offers sufficient salvific grace to all humans. Whether everybody takes up God's offer is a different question altogether.
Actually, upon careful consideration 1 Tim 2:4 is a denial of universalism. Obviously an omnipotent God could without fail send everybody straight to heaven if He so willed. But a desire cannot exist if there's not possibility of failure. I cannot desire to have spatial extent or mass, since there's no possibility that I could not have these. The fact that God merely desires all men to be saved implies that they may not all be saved, hence He has not decreed that they will all be saved without fail.
Or in a nutshell: 1 Tim 2:4 does not say God "arranges that all men are saved and come to the knowledge of the truth", as it should if universalism was true.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
None of which is incompatible with a hopeful universalism, although you are correct that it is incompatible with a dogmatic universalism. If God desires something, I imagine that it is within the range of possibility.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
Although I agree with your answer, IngoB, you've given it away too soon and thus totally spoiled the fun I was going to have ripping a tulip into small pieces.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Five pieces, presumably.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
<Innocent expression>
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
1 Tim 2:4 for openers.
... states only that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (RSV). Thus we can conclude from scripture that God offers sufficient salvific grace to all humans. Whether everybody takes up God's offer is a different question altogether.
Actually, upon careful consideration 1 Tim 2:4 is a denial of universalism. Obviously an omnipotent God could without fail send everybody straight to heaven if He so willed. But a desire cannot exist if there's not possibility of failure. I cannot desire to have spatial extent or mass, since there's no possibility that I could not have these. The fact that God merely desires all men to be saved implies that they may not all be saved, hence He has not decreed that they will all be saved without fail.
Or in a nutshell: 1 Tim 2:4 does not say God "arranges that all men are saved and come to the knowledge of the truth", as it should if universalism was true.
Hold on. Right now I sit on my living room floor (procrastinating readiness for work) in front of a coffee table on which three glasses are sitting. Does anyone doubt that I have the power with which to pick up all three glasses and take them into the kitchen? If I say that I desire to do so, does that necessarily preclude my ability to do so? You could say that there is a chance that I won't or can't, but honestly we know that I can.
God has the power to save us all, and we now know he desires to save us all. Those are good indications that he will--his desire simply comes from the fact that he has the option to not.
-Digory
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
What if you drop one of the glasses?
Or it self-destructs?
Or defies you?
Or is superglued to the table?
Or it evaporates?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
What if one of the glasses doesn't want to go to the kitchen?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It shall be put in the oven forever and ever and scream in conscious burning torment forever and ever and ever and that is just and love and good.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
What if one of the glasses doesn't want to go to the kitchen?
Who is the clay to object to the potter?
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What if you drop one of the glasses?
Or it self-destructs?
Or defies you?
Or is superglued to the table?
Or it evaporates?
All of these options would display my inability to carry them into the kitchen. For me, this is a very real possibility, since I am a considerable "clutz". General belief about the Christian God would suggest this is not a possibility for God. If you believe he definitely CAN, you are only left with the question of "Does he want to?" Even if you say, "Well he wants to, but he doesn't want to impose on our free will," that is equivalent to "He doesn't want to, just for good reason."
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What if one of the glasses doesn't want to go to the kitchen?
Matt, I will use this excuse the next time my wife asks me why I have not cleaned up after myself. And I will credit (or blame) you for any consequences.
The chance that a glass will refuse moving to the kitchen is zero%, in this case because a glass has no choice. The chance that a person will reject God (and not a representation of God but the real, true, actual, perfectly displayed, completely understood God) is x%.
I suppose we're discussing the value of x?
-Digory
Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on
:
Pardon me from not responding to the current issue of the Glasses of Salvation.
This thread is so intriguing on so many levels. What I think is crucial is coming to some understanding of what exactly is "salvation." Does it just mean saved from burning flames of ever-lasting torment? What does it mean "Jesus Christ is the only way of Salvation"? What are we talking about?
If I could give a stab at this question, my position is that salvation = kingdom of heaven. And Jesus is the one who brings the kingdom of heaven.
For you bible-people here's proof-texts from the gospel of St. Matt:
quote:
From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." (Matthew 4:17)
quote:
Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. (Matthew 9:35)
And little-bit OT-style:
quote:
The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,
to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,
and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair
(Isaiah 61:1-3)
ISTM, that salvation = redemption = kingdom of God/heaven. That God is in the process of transforming people's spirits. Salvation is not merely being saved from hell. That's way too small. That's not exactly what Jesus preached. It is about meaning, purpose, and (warning: trite cliche) destiny as heirs of God's kingdom. I think Salvation is also about making us bigger people, making us like God instead of just letting us be where we are.
So, your thoughts - what does Salvation mean to you? What do you mean Jesus Christ is the only way of Salvation?
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JoyfulSoul:
So, your thoughts - what does Salvation mean to you? What do you mean Jesus Christ is the only way of Salvation?
I too will step out of the Glasses of Salvation™ discussion (I know, I know, I started it) to address this nice new redirection which amusingly brings us back to the OP.
I know this may sound crazy, and I don't have any great amazing proof (and I'm quite terrified of those IngoBs and Gordon Chengs who will undoubtedly come by to squash this un-thought-out proposition), but this is an idea that my heart has been tossing around for a year or so now, so I'll throw it out there. Part of me looks at Jesus Christ as a living embodiment of God's decision to show us grace.
Almost as if God listened to his people, the Jews, for hundreds of years as they assured him they'd be able to pull it off themselves, just like we'd all like to. He gave them the Law to explain to them just exactly how they'd have to live to gain salvation and to bring salvation to the rest of the world. Finally, after hundreds of tries, God intervened. "Enough of your tries and attempts, now I will give you Grace." Enter Jesus. He comes to preach and yet to LIVE a new message, a fulfillment of the old way, a completion of the old Law, by showing that God will now not hold our sins against us--though they remain as "sins" (thus the Law is not abolished), they are no longer held against us because God chooses to give us Grace.
So in my opinion, Jesus is the only way of Salvation because Grace is the only way to God. If hundreds of years of example after example are a lesson for us, we can be pretty convinced that we could not live up to the standards ourselves, and thus, we need Grace.
That's a small piece of my view on the matter. I anxiously await your very thoughtful considerations, suggestions, and edits. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
-Digory
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
I, too, am terrified of Mudfrog, IngoB and Gordon Cheng because their God is limited in his ability to love and forgive. In fact he's inferior to me, because I love and forgive better than he does.
My God, being omniscient, knows our weaknesses and looks upon them with the exasperation of a loving parent, but with an infinite ability to forgive because to know all is to forgive all. I believe that Christ is the only way to salvation, but I don't believe that knowing it or believing it is the only way. For man it is impossible, but for God all things, even the salvation of Satan and Adolf Hitler, are possible.
Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I, too, am terrified of Mudfrog, IngoB and Gordon Cheng because their God is limited in his ability to love and forgive. In fact he's inferior to me, because I love and forgive better than he does.
Look, PaulTH* - I don't see Mudfrog's, IngoB's, Gordon Cheng's or any other person's God as a monster because they believe in hell and that people go there.
For crying out loud, my position is that it is because God is a God of Love - and not just any love but True Love is the reason why he gives people a choice to be with Him or not.
I see the God you describe as weird one who not only insists but doesn't even allow anyone to make a choice regarding their own eternal destiny. Your god doesn't allow any choice of the matter which IMO is inconsistent with the world I see today and the lovely Genesis story way back when in the sands of time and story.
I think what I'm writting is probably bordering the Purg line but I'm kind of frustrated with the line you are taking "YOUR GOD is a Monster because he SENDS people to HELL" - which is kind of misrepresenting what I and many others having been trying to say. What do you say?
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I think what I'm writting is probably bordering the Purg line but I'm kind of frustrated with the line you are taking "YOUR GOD is a Monster because he SENDS people to HELL" - which is kind of misrepresenting what I and many others having been trying to say. What do you say?
Joyfulsoul, what do you believe hell is? I'm guessing you don't believe that it is eternal torment, a burning lake of unbearable pain full of crying and gnashing of teeth?
Is hell painful?
Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on
:
What's your point, Demas?
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
If we're considering the potential monstrosity of God, then we need to know what you think the worst case scenario is.
Is God allowing us free will in order that we may miss out on a few carol singing sessions?
Or is God allowing us free will in order that we may burn in an unquenchable fire for eternity?
Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on
:
I don't want to derail this thread anymore from the good conversations that were going on regarding Salvation. If you prefer you can open a new thread "Is God a Monster?" or maybe join the other thread about about hell.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
It's a side tangent; I'll drop it.
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on
:
Let me clarify my earlier statement:
I did say that I was terrified of the IngoBs and the Gordon Chengs. However, I wasn't saying that I'm scared of their theologies, or that I have any disrespect for them either. I simply meant that in somewhat sloppily laying out an argument, I was terrified that the smartest of the people who would most likely disagree might intellectually tear me to pieces.
Just so everybody's not confused.
-Digory
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I, too, am terrified of Mudfrog, IngoB and Gordon Cheng because their God is limited in his ability to love and forgive. In fact he's inferior to me, because I love and forgive better than he does.
My God, being omniscient, knows our weaknesses and looks upon them with the exasperation of a loving parent, but with an infinite ability to forgive because to know all is to forgive all. I believe that Christ is the only way to salvation, but I don't believe that knowing it or believing it is the only way. For man it is impossible, but for God all things, even the salvation of Satan and Adolf Hitler, are possible.
God is not limited in his ability to love and forgive. *Favourite song alert*
Depth of mercy! Can there be
Mercy still reserved for me?
Can my God His wrath forbear,
Me, the chief of sinners, spare?
I have long withstood His grace,
Long provoked Him to His face,
Would not hearken to His calls,
Grieved Him by a thousand falls.
Whence to me this waste of love?
Ask my Advocate above!
See the cause in Jesus’ face,
Now before the throne of grace.
If I rightly read Thy heart,
If Thou all compassion art,
Bow Thine ear, in mercy bow,
Pardon and accept me now.
There for me the Savior stands,
Shows His wounds and spreads His hands.
God is love! I know, I feel;
Jesus lives and loves me still.
Charles Wesley
The only difference between you and I is that you think that God does not hold people accountable for their sin.
God's holiness pervades everything - his love, his justice, his compassion. It is that holiness that gave rise to the need and the provision of a Saviour.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The only difference between you and I is that you think that God does not hold people accountable for their sin.
It is very hard sometimes to move beyond the same assertions; and this really is off-topic.
What we're trying to discuss is whether Jesus is the only way of salvation, and if so, what that means.
Surely you agree that salvation is not merely justification but also sanctification? That we don't 'go to heaven' but also 'become heavenly'?
Now the only way to do that is by becoming more loving, more humble, in fact, more like Jesus.
Think about this - we are saved by becoming more like Jesus. (Don't get sidetracked - I'm not saying this is our doing, I'm not arguing about works v. grace).
Can we become more like Jesus without knowing who Jesus is? Sure, why not. People do it all the time. They listen to the small still voice of God within them.
This may not be the whole story; but isn't it part of it?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The only difference between you and I is that you think that God does not hold people accountable for their sin.
It is very hard sometimes to move beyond the same assertions; and this really is off-topic.
What we're trying to discuss is whether Jesus is the only way of salvation, and if so, what that means.
Surely you agree that salvation is not merely justification but also sanctification? That we don't 'go to heaven' but also 'become heavenly'?
Now the only way to do that is by becoming more loving, more humble, in fact, more like Jesus.
Think about this - we are saved by becoming more like Jesus. (Don't get sidetracked - I'm not saying this is our doing, I'm not arguing about works v. grace).
Can we become more like Jesus without knowing who Jesus is? Sure, why not. People do it all the time. They listen to the small still voice of God within them.
This may not be the whole story; but isn't it part of it?
Indeed. But 'like Jesus' in what respect?
In his morality?
In his religiosity?
In his Jewishness?
In his relationship to God the Father?
I guess that most of what 'being like Jesus' means actually conforms to Judeao-Christian patterns. Therefore, becoming like Jesus actually means becoming more intently Judeao-Christian.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
The only difference between you and I is that you think that God does not hold people accountable for their sin.
Actually, I do believe that we are accountable for our sin. I also believe that God is pure love and that love "keeps no record of wrongs" (I Cor 13.5).
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
The only difference between you and I is that you think that God does not hold people accountable for their sin.
Actually, I do believe that we are accountable for our sin. I also believe that God is pure love and that love "keeps no record of wrongs" (I Cor 13.5).
So what's there to forgive?
Or do you assume that god arbitrarily forgives people as soon as they have sinned, and then totally forgets they ever sinned?
Forgiveness without repentance?
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
It seems to me that there ought to be in our tradition something that tracks the "righteous gentile" paradigm of the Jews? I have read that one of the reasons conversion to Judaism is discouraged is that once you've converted, it's actually harder to be righteous because you're bound by all the laws. It seems to me that, in the same logical vein, more must be expected of those who have made the conscious choice to be Christian than of those who are operating outside that sphere but know Christ in another way that doesn't involve being a professing Christian. It's not that you'd be less likely to be saved (whatever that represents) but that you don't by simple virtue of being a churchgoing Christian have a better chance than a righteous non-Christian.
What's God's motivation here? What does God want us to be? Many scholars have posited that God wants us to be like Him, to be drawn to Him, to develop into the people God means us to be -- the Orthodox call it theosis. Why would that necessarily require accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior? (gack!) Why couldn't walking in God's way and doing God's will and achieving theosis this way please God as much?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0