Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christian Orthodoxy
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: quote: As you say, being a Christian and being saved are not the same thing. We can be Christian and not be saved...I think what I have come to realise from that discussion is that being a Christian, in principle allows for the possibility of salvation. And that salvation is through Jesus, and only Jesus.
I never said anything about salvation, Evensong, and I can hardly be called to account for your soteriology that I knew nothing about. Since I do NOT conflate Christianity and salvation, you have nothing to worry about when I say that some people aren't Christians.
Zach
Christianity is not about salvation??
What's it about for you then? A source of amusement?
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by Evensong: So in saying someone is not a Christian, you are essentially saying they are excluded from the possibility of salvation through Jesus.
I don't follow. Why is that? I believe lots of people will be saved through Christ who are not Christians. Indeed everybody who is saved will be saved through Christ, as He Himself said, "No-one comes to the Father but through Me." But as a wise person once said to me, you don't have to know the name of a bridge to cross it.
Then we are speaking of different "saves" here mousethief. Yours seems to be an end of the world thing...?
I'm talking about now, in this life, knowing God through Christ.
If you don't think that's important, but that people are upheld by Christ in this life regardless of whether or not they know him, then they are Christians. Because that is how their salvation is effected. Through Christ.
I'm not sure why this is so difficult for people to understand.
A Muslim believes s/he is saved through Muhammad, Buddhists through Buddha etc. etc just as we believe we are saved through Jesus.
Christians are Christians because they follow the way, they follow Jesus.
If everyone follows Jesus (or is saved through him) whether they know it or not, then they're all Christians too and there is absolutely no point in making any distinctions whatsoever.
-------------------- a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote: Christianity is not about salvation??
Try to up your order of logic here 2 or 3 degrees here. Just because they aren't the same thing doesn't mean they aren't closely related.
Zach
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: quote: Christianity is not about salvation??
Try to up your order of logic here 2 or 3 degrees here. Just because they aren't the same thing doesn't mean they aren't closely related.
Zach
That is not an answer.
If salvation is only "closely related" to Christianity, then what is Christianity?
If you tell someone they are not a Christian, what are you excluding them from?
Just a set of intellectual propositions that you particularly like?
In that case, yeah, it doesn't matter if they are excluded from your brand of Christianity.
They might take Christianity more seriously though.
-------------------- a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about by "saved". How is someone who is "saved" merely in this life any different from someone who isn't?
For me (and you might not know this; not everybody (alas!) hangs on my every word here) salvation means becoming by grace what God is by nature. That can start in this life, or for some it might start in the next. But for all it is made possible by Christ's work (incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension) and attested to by His teachings and that of His apostles and saints. For Christians it explicitly starts in this life (if we let it).
You seem to have an idea of salvation that I've never met before, if you think Christians are saved by Christ, and Muslims are saved by Mohammed (I'm sure there are no Muslims in the entire world who would agree to such a thing), and Buddhists are saved through Buddha, but then you seem to equate being saved with being a Christian. Saved for what? Saved from what? No, I don't understand what you mean by "saved." It's not what the Church has understood by the word for nigh on 2000 years.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Being a Christian means being a member of the Church through baptism.
To put it simply (rather too simply, honestly) non Christians get points for being mostly right, or even sort of right.
Zach
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about by "saved". How is someone who is "saved" merely in this life any different from someone who isn't? ,,,,,
It's not what the Church has understood by the word for nigh on 2000 years.
Mark 16.16: The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.
Luke 7.50: And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’
Romans 10.9: because* if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
I don't think my notion of being saved is foreign to the Church.
More simply, IMO, to be saved is to know God through Christ.
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: Being a Christian means being a member of the Church through baptism.
My bad. I was going much deeper than that.
-------------------- a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Evensong: Mark 16.16: The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.
Luke 7.50: And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’
Romans 10.9: because* if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
I don't think my notion of being saved is foreign to the Church.
I don't see how those quotes support any one notion of what being saved means.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Evensong: quote: Originally posted by Zach82: quote: Christianity is not about salvation??
Try to up your order of logic here 2 or 3 degrees here. Just because they aren't the same thing doesn't mean they aren't closely related.
Zach
That is not an answer.
If salvation is only "closely related" to Christianity, then what is Christianity?
If you tell someone they are not a Christian, what are you excluding them from?
Just a set of intellectual propositions that you particularly like?
In that case, yeah, it doesn't matter if they are excluded from your brand of Christianity.
They might take Christianity more seriously though.
I think you're finally getting it. And in less than a year.
'A set of intellectual propositions' is precisely what a creed IS.
-------------------- Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by Evensong: Mark 16.16: The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.
Luke 7.50: And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’
Romans 10.9: because* if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
I don't think my notion of being saved is foreign to the Church.
I don't see how those quotes support any one notion of what being saved means.
You're right. They don't. They use the word, but none of them define what it means.
It's hardly unusual for Evensong to consider these sorts of things to be self-evident.
-------------------- Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Evensong: More simply, IMO, to be saved is to know God through Christ.
If it's 'through Christ' then Muslims who believe they are saved through Muhammad are mistaken? Is that what you're saying?
Ironically, you're not being at all clear on the distinction (if any) between 'Christian' and 'saved'.`You now seem to asserting that one can only be saved through Christ, but it also seems that you think by definition that this is what 'Christian' means which explains why you get upset anytime someone is excluded from being a 'Christian'.
-------------------- Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dave Marshall: I don't have any external evidence for this, but I doubt most people really believe most faith claims. The test would be a chamber that provided an ultimately attractive reward if you stepped in and really believed, but instant death if not. How many of us would step in on the basis of a religious belief?
Actually, Christianity was founded on the blood of those who faced horrific deaths in order to receive their heavenly reward.
But Christianity has never required a faith that strong, just praised it. Because Christianity recognizes human weakness. Your test is simply inhumane, and religion by and large isn't.
quote: Originally posted by RadicalWhig: Now I see that Dawkins is right: many more are sincerely deluded than I thought. That bemuses me. It also scares me. I have to accept it, but I find it very difficult to understand. I cannot get my head around it. It's absurd.
Actually, your attitude (and Dawkins', but that goes without saying) is absurd. It is simply beyond reasonable doubt that the typical claims of religion cannot be proven wrong or false to general satisfaction. And not so for the lack of trying - it just literally cannot be done. Given this state of affairs, the only non-absurd attitude is to stop using terms like "delusion".
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by Evensong: Mark 16.16: The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.
Luke 7.50: And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’
Romans 10.9: because* if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
I don't think my notion of being saved is foreign to the Church.
I don't see how those quotes support any one notion of what being saved means.
*sigh*.... I wasn't trying to prove any one notion of what the word means. I was trying to show that my idea of being saved through Christ is rather standard biblical fare...
-------------------- a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by orfeo: quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by Evensong: Mark 16.16: The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.
Luke 7.50: And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’
Romans 10.9: because* if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
I don't think my notion of being saved is foreign to the Church.
I don't see how those quotes support any one notion of what being saved means.
You're right. They don't. They use the word, but none of them define what it means.
It's hardly unusual for Evensong to consider these sorts of things to be self-evident.
Thus cometh the snarkiness.....I think I'll step back here.
As you were.
-------------------- a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Evensong: Thus cometh the snarkiness.....I think I'll step back here.
As you were.
Evensong, the only reason the snarkiness comes is because that's exactly how I perceive many of your responses to other people. As snarky or patronising.
Any time someone presents a point of view on this topic that you don't like, your response is often a passive-agressive oblique comment. Often with a link to a picture or something.
Now, if you want to debate the topic, go ahead. But can you please do it in a form that doesn't involve remarks along the lines of "That must be a heavy load to bear, deciding who may or may not receive the salvation offered by Jesus Christ"
-------------------- Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Evensong: A Muslim believes s/he is saved through Muhammad, Buddhists through Buddha etc. etc just as we believe we are saved through Jesus.
Christians are Christians because they follow the way, they follow Jesus.
If everyone follows Jesus (or is saved through him) whether they know it or not, then they're all Christians too and there is absolutely no point in making any distinctions whatsoever.
It seems to me fairly difficult to look at the set of Buddhists or the set of Muslims on one hand and the set of Christians on the other and to say that all of one lot are definitely saved in this life, and all of that lot still need salvation. There are Buddhists who certainly seem saved, and I'm sure we can both think of lots of loudly devout Christians who don't seem to have been saved from anything very much at all yet. (And no Buddhists do not believe they are saved through the Buddha (with the possible exception of Amida) as we believe we are saved through Jesus; and Muslims certainly do not believe they are saved through Mohammad.)
If we're calling someone a Christian we're talking in this worldly terms about the community that they're a member of, the symbols they use to find meaning, the stories they tell, the rituals they take part in, and, yes, even the intellectual beliefs they assent to. Bringing salvation into it is a whole other set of value judgements.
-------------------- we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: Muslims certainly do not believe they are saved through Mohammad.
Indeed. As I understand it, Islam doesn't have a concept of being "saved". Being a Muslim certainly doesn't make you "saved" - neither in the sense of an internal spiritual change, nor in the sense of having a guaranteed place in paradise. You have to be a "good" - that is, observant, obedient - Muslim in order to be on the right side of the balance on the day of judgment. The whole Islamic system is based on what we used to call "house points" and "black marks". It's only after you die that you find out whether you have won enough house-points for good behaviour to outweigh your black marks: obviously, though, not being a Muslim - having not "submitted" to "Allah" and "His Prophet" - is the ultimate black mark against someone. [ 05. January 2011, 10:01: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
-------------------- Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
(Sunni) Islam is actually a fairly simple religious system. It's totalitarian, legalistic monotheism in its purest form: Allah exists as a sovereign-creator-ruler. Everything that happens is Allah's will, and Allah's will is capricious, absolute, irresponsible and unquestionable. Allah issues commands and legal rules, transmitted through prophets, which are absolute and binding on all humanity. If you submit to obey all the rules and submit to Allah and his prophets you might be rewarded with paradise after you die. If not, you will burn in hell.
I'm not necessarily saying it's a good system. It's basic principle is "get down on your face, shut up, obey!"(*) It's expansionistic, violent(**), fatalistic and inflexible. It tends towards a repressive, hypocritical legalism. It allows no real separation between religious and secular authority. But at least it has the advantage of a certain austere simplicity.
(*) It's no wonder that Muslim-majority countries find it so difficult to establish anything approximating liberal-democracy. (Turkey, Indonesia and Lebanon are, at best, partial exceptions).
(**) Anyone who says, "Islam is a religion of peace" is either a lying or misguided apologist for Islam, or is forgetting that "Peace" (Salaam) and "Submission" (Islam) come from the same root - S-L-M - the "peace" which Islam offers is the peace of totalitarian rule on its own terms.
-------------------- Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: quote: No - the point of 'parts' of Canterbury was that some Anglicans would look to the other orthodoxy.
And my point was that "parts" of Catholicism and Orthodoxy look to the other orthodoxy too. I've met them. Lots of them.
Zach
Really? That's interesting.
I acknowledge that plenty of protestants look towards the 'Apostolical' Orthodoxy of the early fathers, the sacraments, the ancient liturgies - indeed that spirit was at the heart of much of the reformation. They may be 'liberal' or 'conservative' on dead horses.
I am not sure how to define the other Orthodoxy in a positive way because I don't hold to it - only that is doesn't look towards those things - or isn't concerned with them. I can't see how one could be Orthodox or Catholic and authentically not look towards the 'Apostolical' tradition.
-------------------- blog//twitter// linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote: *sigh*.... I wasn't trying to prove any one notion of what the word means. I was trying to show that my idea of being saved through Christ is rather standard biblical fare...
No one but no one is doubting that mankind is saved through Jesus Christ. We're just wondering if you have a clear idea of what "saved" means.
Zach
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by RadicalWhig: quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: Muslims certainly do not believe they are saved through Mohammad.
Indeed. As I understand it, Islam doesn't have a concept of being "saved".
I think the point is rather that 'Vell, Muhammed's just zis guy, you know' (Apologies)
Muhammed doesn't save people any more than Isaiah or Jeremiah save people.
-------------------- Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains. Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What Dinghy Sailor said.
quote: Originally posted by Evensong: *sigh*.... I wasn't trying to prove any one notion of what the word means. I was trying to show that my idea of being saved through Christ is rather standard biblical fare...
Quoting bible verses that don't necessarily support any one notion of "salvation" PERFORCE doesn't support YOUR notion of "salvation". I should have thought this self-evident. Those verses stand apart from any idea of what salvation means, therefore they cannot possibly support YOUR idea of what salvation means.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by RadicalWhig: Even those people who say they really believe it probably don't, for the most part, really believe it. They just like to say, pretend, and imagine that they really believe it, to the point where fantasy and reality break down.
I wasn't saying anyone is pretending to believe. Obviously there are some who have no interest in making reasonable sense with the words they use, or lack the ability, or play games, but I wasn't thinking of them.
There's also a problem with language, because belief is such a mushy idea - it spreads out to cover a range of sometimes subtle shades of meaning. Is there a difference between believing something and thinking we believe it, for example. I'm suggesting there is, in that 'real belief' is arrived at by a reasoned consideration of evidence, while 'habitual belief' is something we fall into for some other reason. But from the inside they're both genuinely 'what we believe'.
The difference becomes apparent (to us as the believer) if a doubt crops up that makes us look again at why we believe. For a 'real belief' we can simply go back to the evidence. But a 'habital belief' doesn't have that, only whatever context caused the habit to form. At this point we might discover there is in fact good evidence for our belief so it becomes grounded and therefore 'real' (as I did with God). And if we find no real evidence (as I did with the Incarnation) we may (grudgingly, because we're only human) acknowledge we were mistaken and adjust our belief system to reflect our updated perception of reality. But alternatively, we might for whatever reason close down or shut out consideration of questions that raised the doubt and stick with a world view that at least in this respect does not reflect reality.
This is where it seems 'traditional orthodoxy', to use Ingo's terminology, has left traditional Christianity: 'habitual believers' using carefully constructed tools ('worship', 'prayer') to convince themselves and others that their world view makes sense, when anyone free of the habit can see good reasons why it doesn't. That's not to say orthodox Christians don't sincerely believe, just that from our point of view they're mistaken. [ 05. January 2011, 20:42: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dave Marshall: This is where it seems 'traditional orthodoxy', to use Ingo's terminology, has left traditional Christianity: 'habitual believers' using carefully constructed tools ('worship', 'prayer') to convince themselves and others that their world view makes sense, when anyone free of the habit can see good reasons why it doesn't. That's not to say orthodox Christians don't sincerely believe, just that from our point of view they're mistaken.
Close, but no cigar. The "carefully constructed tools" prayer and worship do little to convince anyone of anything in the intellectual sense. That's simply not their purpose.
I should loose some weight, 10 kg at least. Why don't I? Do I have any problems intellectually grasping that I should loose some weight? Not at all. Yet I do not in fact loose weight.
Christianity, or for that matter religion in general, faces the same problem. Just much worse. Prayer and worship can be considered as a solution strategy, if you want a mechanistic analysis.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dave Marshall: The difference becomes apparent (to us as the believer) if a doubt crops up that makes us look again at why we believe. For a 'real belief' we can simply go back to the evidence. But a 'habital belief' doesn't have that, only whatever context caused the habit to form. At this point we might discover there is in fact good evidence for our belief so it becomes grounded and therefore 'real' (as I did with God). And if we find no real evidence (as I did with the Incarnation) we may (grudgingly, because we're only human) acknowledge we were mistaken and adjust our belief system to reflect our updated perception of reality. But alternatively, we might for whatever reason close down or shut out consideration of questions that raised the doubt and stick with a world view that at least in this respect does not reflect reality.
This is where it seems 'traditional orthodoxy', to use Ingo's terminology, has left traditional Christianity: 'habitual believers' using carefully constructed tools ('worship', 'prayer') to convince themselves and others that their world view makes sense, when anyone free of the habit can see good reasons why it doesn't. That's not to say orthodox Christians don't sincerely believe, just that from our point of view they're mistaken.
But why not just accept Christianity as an internally-consistent system based on a bunch of unproved axioms, just the same way we do in math? That's what I do, pretty much.
I mean, nobody can prove the Incarnation, one way or the other, just as nobody can prove the existence of God in the first place. But if you take these things as given, you can go someplace with them. You can explore the system and see what it has to offer - just as in math. It might have some unexpected and surprising answers - just as in math. It might even be unreasonably effective in certain areas - just as math is.
Axioms of this kind might be non-logical, all right - but that's the way mysticism works anyway. It's not supposed to be "proved" - it's supposed to get you someplace. Viz., to transcendence and integration (well, sometimes) - or maybe to a sense of the unfairness of the world around you. Possibly you experience a profound, astounding sense of well-being - or possibly you end up cracked wide open and at the beginning of a long, difficult struggle. Either way, you've found something you positively weren't looking for.
That's called Serendipity - finding something while looking for something else. And that's the mystical path, really, I think - the confounding of all one's expectations, in order to get someplace we had no idea existed. The moving beyond our own preconceived notions of reality into something perhaps utterly fascinating and strange. Like non-Euclidean geometry, maybe.
And all this, totally free of charge to anybody who wants to give it a try. That's the best part, actually....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: quote: *sigh*.... I wasn't trying to prove any one notion of what the word means. I was trying to show that my idea of being saved through Christ is rather standard biblical fare...
No one but no one is doubting that mankind is saved through Jesus Christ. We're just wondering if you have a clear idea of what "saved" means.
Zach
It was never my intention to define "saved". Just the fact Christianity is about salvation.
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: What Dinghy Sailor said.
quote: Originally posted by Evensong: *sigh*.... I wasn't trying to prove any one notion of what the word means. I was trying to show that my idea of being saved through Christ is rather standard biblical fare...
Quoting bible verses that don't necessarily support any one notion of "salvation" PERFORCE doesn't support YOUR notion of "salvation". I should have thought this self-evident. Those verses stand apart from any idea of what salvation means, therefore they cannot possibly support YOUR idea of what salvation means.
Ditto what I said to Zac.
I don't understand why everyone has such trouble with this idea.
In my opinion, Christianity is about salvation. So if someone says you're not a Christian, the implication is that offer of salvation is no longer open to you.
And only God can judge that.
But if Christianity is only about being a member of a meaningless club, then it doesn't matter.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote: ...Just the fact Christianity is about salvation.
I agree, Christianity is about salvation. You keep whipping the goal posts around.
quote: So if someone says you're not a Christian, the implication is that offer of salvation is no longer open to you.
Salvation is offered to everyone. Does that mean that everyone is a Christian?
Zach [ 06. January 2011, 01:17: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: quote: ...Just the fact Christianity is about salvation.
I agree, Christianity is about salvation. You keep whipping the goal posts around.
I'm moving the goalposts? Above you said you did not conflate Christianity with salvation.
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: quote: So if someone says you're not a Christian, the implication is that offer of salvation is no longer open to you.
Salvation is offered to everyone. Does that mean that everyone is a Christian?
If they accept that offer, yes.
-------------------- a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote: I'm moving the goalposts? [Confused] Above you said you did not conflate Christianity with salvation.
Do you really not know the difference between "Christianity is salvation" and "Christianity is about salvation?"
quote: If they accept that offer, yes.
Zoom! Goal posts moved again. First, Christianity is being offered salvation, now, Christianity is accepting salvation.
Zach [ 06. January 2011, 01:35: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: Zoom! Goal posts moved again. First, Christianity is being offered salvation, now, Christianity is accepting salvation.
That is how I read this, also.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: quote: I'm moving the goalposts? [Confused] Above you said you did not conflate Christianity with salvation.
Do you really not know the difference between "Christianity is salvation" and "Christianity is about salvation?"
I made that distinction quite carefully in my first post on the topic.
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: quote: If they accept that offer, yes.
Zoom! Goal posts moved again. First, Christianity is being offered salvation, now, Christianity is accepting salvation.
It's both. Or do you think we have no free will in the matter?
-------------------- a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote: I made that distinction quite carefully in my first post on the topic... It's both. Or do you think we have no free will in the matter?
Now we're on to a third proposition. "Christianity is being offered and accepting salvation." See, you think you are being so clear here. We are trying to make you understand that you aren't.
Zach
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: quote: I made that distinction quite carefully in my first post on the topic... It's both. Or do you think we have no free will in the matter?
Now we're on to a third proposition. "Christianity is being offered and accepting salvation." See, you think you are being so clear here. We are trying to make you understand that you aren't.
Obviously not.
Let's try a different tack.
When you say someone is not a Christian, how do you think that affects their salvation in your mind?
-------------------- a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I have already explained that, and I've been consistent to boot. It was in that "non-Christians get points for being mostly right" thing. What's ironic is that you quoted Lumen Gentium against me, when I am more in accordance with it than you. (As far as I can tell.)
The doctrines, sacraments, and moral teachings of the Christian Church are indeed the offer of God's grace on this earth. Yet, as Lumen Gentium says,
quote: Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience...
Zach
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
It doesn't matter what he thinks about it. Personal salvation and professing Christianity are closely related, some people believe that one exclusively leads into the other, other people (ie universalists) don't think that. However, we all agree that whether or not they're inextricably linked, the two concepts [u]are not coterminous[/i]. A person may or may not be able to be saved without being Christian, but that is a different debate to the one about what it means to be a Christian.
Whatever Zach thinks on the issue, I've just given the majority consensus, and is what we mean when we say these words. You don't get to redefine them for your own purposes!
[x post with Zach] [ 06. January 2011, 02:56: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]
-------------------- Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains. Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
<Prescript> I take way too long to write , but I don't think this covers too much ground already covered. My apologies if it does. </Prescript>
quote: Originally posted by Evensong: In my opinion, Christianity is about salvation.
I would agree, but isn't it about much more than just salvation? I think salvation is a beginning - a very important beginning, but still only a beginning because I think Christ cares as much about what we do after we're saved as He does about whether or not we accept His salvation to begin with. It's not just about whether we can accept or receive His joy and peace, but also about how much of them we're able to receive and pass on to others.
quote: So if someone says you're not a Christian, the implication is that offer of salvation is no longer open to you.
That's the implication only if that someone thinks that the only way to salvation is through Christianity. Another possibility is that the only way to salvation is through Christ and that He offers it to everyone, but only Christians are aware that He is the way. Non-Christians can still receive salvation through Christ, they're just not aware of it yet.
I may be wrong, but you seem to be equating the idea that Christianity is about salvation with the idea that salvation is the only point of Christianity. Even if the whole world was Christian, and absolutely everyone was already saved, Christ would still be calling us to look after and help each other. I think that's what Christianity is about because I think salvation is a given for everyone willing to receive it. Christians may have the advantage of being able to know in this life what it is they are receiving, but non-Christians get to find out in the next life if they don't in this life.
I'm not saying that's the only way to see it, just that it's a legitimate way to see it. Or am I just misunderstanding your point?
quote: And only God can judge that.
Yes, but that's true whatever you believe about salvation. If you think only Christians can be saved, then only God can judge whether someone is a Christian. If you think non-Christians can be saved, then you can safely judge whether someone seems to be a Christian or not while leaving it to God to judge whether or not they are saved.
Depending on how you see the relationship between being Christian and being saved, saying that someone is not a Christian doesn't have to mean anything about whether or not they're able to be saved, and at the same time it doesn't have to mean that there's no point to being a Christian.
-------------------- A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by W Hyatt: quote: So if someone says you're not a Christian, the implication is that offer of salvation is no longer open to you.
That's the implication only if that someone thinks that the only way to salvation is through Christianity.
It's not even that. If you're not a Christian, the implication is NOT that the offer is no longer open. If that were the case there could be no adult converts to Christianity. Before age 18, I was not a Christian. From this it most emphatically does not follow that the offer of salvation wasn't open to me. If someone had said of me at that time that I wasn't a Christian, would Evensong have reprimanded them and tell them that they were condemning me to the flames of Hell? It's nonsense.
For, as it turns out, I did become a Christian in that year.
This is the problem: Evensong's definition of 'Christian' is slipping and sliding all over the place. First she says that the offer of salvation -- not salvation itself, but the offer of it, is not available to non-Christians. God does not offer salvation to non-Christians. Then she says Christians are those who have accepted the offer. No word on people who have rejected the offer, or how (or whether) people who are members of some other religion are saved.
Every time she posts she raises more questions than she answers. [ 06. January 2011, 03:39: Message edited by: mousethief ]
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
Holy poop on a stick, I don't sign in for a few days and this thread's gone to five pages...
A lot of discussion about how Christianity amounts to doing good, to love of neighbour, to Jesus' radical message of gracious love of our fellow humans, to overturning social and political oppression and not to a literally resurrected, still living Christ seems to advocate a very good thing, in many respects.
But do those who support this (non-orthodox) account of Christianity worry at all about this?
This isn't meant to be a Hellish dig at non-orthodoxy. Genuinely, aren't the non-orthodox Christians (or, maybe they're not Christians, depending on which definition you opt for) concerned about missing out on (and I sound way more evangelical than I am when I say this) a personal relationship with God?
Or is that what it boils down to - that there is no God, but we like our traditions and we like to be nice? [ 06. January 2011, 15:33: Message edited by: Calleva Atrebatum ]
-------------------- Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum: But do those who support this (non-orthodox) account of Christianity worry at all about this?
Well, in the context of that specific passage I think the Bushes have more to worry about than the Gandhis. It seems to be directed at those who are "Christians" - or at least who claim to be - but who nevertheless do evil. It implies judgement according to deeds and character, not the judgment according to faith in Christ which is what you get if you look at the Bible through the lens of Paul rather than the lens of Jesus.
Of course, I don't believe in a literal heaven or a literal hell, so judgment isn't understood in that sense (which is basically an Egyptian idea, weighing the heart when crossing the river styx, that sort of thing). But we can create real torment or bliss, for ourselves and for others, depending on how we are and how we act.
quote: This isn't meant to be a Hellish dig at non-orthodoxy. Genuinely, aren't the non-orthodox Christians (or, maybe they're not Christians, depending on which definition you opt for) concerned about missing out on (and I sound way more evangelical than I am when I say this) a personal relationship with God?
What is the difference between a "personal relationship with God" and "a personal relationship with one's own conscience"? I think those who say they experience the former are, like me, merely experiencing the latter. But there's a sense in which our conscience is the seat of rationality, of the Spirit, of Consciousness, and so we can say it is divine too. Maybe we all have a personal relationship with God, even if our God is not a theistic, personal, trinitarian God.
quote: Or is that what it boils down to - that there is no God, but we like our traditions and we like to be nice?
I'd phrase it more positively than that: firstly, that there is an impersonal, transcendent, Pandeistic God, which is the epitome of Nature and of Natural Law, in which all creation lives, moves and has its being; secondly, that ethical way of the Christian tradition, more specifically a radical and humanistic interpretation of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, provide a most excellent way to live in accordance with Natural Law, a way based on love, repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation and healing for all humanity and ultimately for all creation. Our religious duties are to love God and to love our neighbour; the love of God being evidenced by reverence for the cosmos and the natural order, and with love of our neighbour reflecting the fact that we all contain the divine spark of consciousness and we are all cousins derived from the same source.
(The really interesting thing about Pandeism is that it is fully incarnational: if God became the universe and is manifest in Nature and Nature's Law, then everything is filled with divinity).
Romans 7:19 is the trickier one. This reflects a difficulty in all of us in choosing between that which we know to be "most excellent" and that which is "easiest" or "most immediately rewarding". The development of virtue, as I understand it, is an education and forming of our desires, so that we come to habitually want and do that which is most excellent; that takes practice and discipline. But this isn't evidence of an original sin or fall; we are evolving creatures, slowly using our conscience and reason to shape, and sometimes override, our instincts.
-------------------- Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I seem to have royally fucked this up again.
I'm sorry if I'm unclear. I'm not trying to be obscure. I suppose the definitions of "Christian" and "Salvation" are just to wide for us all to be on the same page.
I'll just go back to the original cause for comment.
Zac told RadicalWhig he wasn't a Christian because he didn't believe in the Nicene Creed (or was that all other Church doctrine as well?)
RadicalWhig self-professes to follow Jesus.
So according to scripture like "Ask, knock and you will receive the Holy spirit" and "whoever believes in me will receive eternal life", RadicalWhig quite easily qualifies as a Christian.
According to scripture, it's quite possible he has the holy spirit and is therefore "saved" or on the path to salvation or has accepted the offer of salvation from Jesus.
So Zac coming along and excommunicating him is just bizarre IMO.
This has nothing to do with Universalism or salvation in other faiths etc when someone professes to be a Christian.
And just to be clear about my comments on Buddhists and Muslims believing they are saved through their prophets, I did not mean it ontologically like some people relate it to Jesus. I don't mean they have a myriad of insane atonement theories based on the person of their prophets. I meant a Muslim generally believes he is saved through following the revelation handed down to Muhammad by God. A Buddhists generally believes he will head for Nirvana by following the practises of the Buddha. Therefore, they are "saved" through their prophets.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Evensong: I seem to have royally fucked this up again.
I'm sorry if I'm unclear. I'm not trying to be obscure. I suppose the definitions of "Christian" and "Salvation" are just to wide for us all to be on the same page.
I'll just go back to the original cause for comment.
Zac told RadicalWhig he wasn't a Christian because he didn't believe in the Nicene Creed (or was that all other Church doctrine as well?)
RadicalWhig self-professes to follow Jesus.
So according to scripture like "Ask, knock and you will receive the Holy spirit" and "whoever believes in me will receive eternal life", RadicalWhig quite easily qualifies as a Christian.
According to scripture, it's quite possible he has the holy spirit and is therefore "saved" or on the path to salvation or has accepted the offer of salvation from Jesus.
So Zac coming along and excommunicating him is just bizarre IMO.
This has nothing to do with Universalism or salvation in other faiths etc when someone professes to be a Christian.
And just to be clear about my comments on Buddhists and Muslims believing they are saved through their prophets, I did not mean it ontologically like some people relate it to Jesus. I don't mean they have a myriad of insane atonement theories based on the person of their prophets. I meant a Muslim generally believes he is saved through following the revelation handed down to Muhammad by God. A Buddhists generally believes he will head for Nirvana by following the practises of the Buddha. Therefore, they are "saved" through their prophets.
Depends entirely on whether you think RadicalWhig "believes in me" (ie Jesus).
What does that mean, exactly? Because as I understand it, RW doesn't believe that Jesus is God, or supernaturally divine, or anything along those lines.
There is a whole spectrum of beliefs ABOUT Jesus - that he was a wise teacher, or a prophet. Do they all qualify as belief IN him?
That's the question you need to consider.
-------------------- Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Yet another definition of a Christian from Evensong.
It's the price of having a consistent definition of Christianity, Evensong. It draws a line between who's in and who's out.
Zach [ 07. January 2011, 02:04: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
So Unitarians are not Christians?
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Ikkyu: So Unitarians are not Christians?
Who are you asking?...
In my current view, no.
EDIT: But if you want to ask whether Unitarians are saved, you'll get a much more complex answer about how that's God's decision, not mine, and any view I express on it won't make a jot of difference, and there'll be all these complicated sidebars about how/if non-Christians get saved. [ 07. January 2011, 02:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]
-------------------- Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
I think the word "Christian" is the only reasonable option we have to describe people who base their lives around the fellow from Nazareth. As was pointed out earlier here, if we restrict the word too much, then heresy becomes impossible. There are True Christians are... the other. Which is silly.
Now as for "orthodox" Christianity, well this hardly is a final answer but I would say anyone whose baptism you recognize as "valid" counts. If you can take people and pour water on them while saying "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" while believing the ideas, if not the words, of the Creeds, then you're orthodox.
-------------------- IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by orfeo: Depends entirely on whether you think RadicalWhig "believes in me" (ie Jesus).
What does that mean, exactly?
Well for me, believing in Jesus means following Jesus. For some it seems to mean assenting to a doctrinal creed the Church devised 300 years after Jesus' death.
Perhaps Churchian rather than Christian is a better term for such types.
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: Yet another definition of a Christian from Evensong.
Which bit? Having the spirit? No. Talked about that last page.
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: It's the price of having a consistent definition of Christianity, Evensong. It draws a line between who's in and who's out.
And this separating the sheep from the goats helps who exactly? Sounds like it just helps those who are "in" feel more self-righteous.
Jesus was rather keen on those that were "out" and oppressed by the institution Zac.
-------------------- a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Evensong: quote: Originally posted by orfeo: Depends entirely on whether you think RadicalWhig "believes in me" (ie Jesus).
What does that mean, exactly?
Well for me, believing in Jesus means following Jesus. For some it seems to mean assenting to a doctrinal creed the Church devised 300 years after Jesus' death.
Okay.
I will have to think for a while about whether or not I actually think 'following' helps clear things up at all.
I'm inclined to think that what you believe ABOUT Jesus is important. My basis for thinking that would mainly be the passage where Jesus asks about who people say he is, and then asks the disciples who do THEY say he is - and Peter declares him to be the Christ.
I know that's not quite a Nicene Creed thing, because it rather depends on what you think being the Christ/Messiah means.
Another factor to me is that, in my view, the Jewish leaders who were against Jesus quite clearly understood him to be claiming divinity. On my reading of a number of passages, that was the reason they regarded him as blasphemous. Surely that's important.
On the other hand, it's quite ironic that you bring up the sheep and the goats because that parable is all about saying that what you call Jesus is NOT the key thing, it's what you do.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Doesn't the introduction of smilies in your post above create snark - which you have professed you want to keep out of the discussion ?
I am in a non-creedal church, probably not included in orthodox definitions of Christianity. The fact that it isn't doesn't actually make a lot of difference to me personally.
Re the radcial whig debate, when you say follow or believe in Jesus - do you consider that that means believing in Jesus' divinity or not ?
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Addressed to Evensong - crossposted with various folk.
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Having recently concluded that questions about Orthodox doctrine concerning the Virgin Mary cannot be adequately addressed if we restrict ourselves to Protestant assumptions, I now wonder if we are faced with a similar problem in considering the meaning of the word 'Christian' or, rather, the meaning of 'Christ', since this is who is being discussed.
While we might dismiss RadicalWhig's Christ on the grounds that his avowedly Jeffersonian Christ is not the Christ of the New Testament (can anyone produce a convincing dismissal, I wonder?), we cannot do so with Evensong, who has explicitly sought to separate the Gospels from the post-Apostolic church, and quite possibly also from the rest of the New Testament.
While I'm sure many Protestants would distance themselves from this position, ISTM to be a logical consequence of the Protestant approach to Scripture, leading inevitably to a plurality of Christs.
-------------------- Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|