← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · friedrich braun
Thread ID: 17742 | Posts: 77 | Started: 2005-04-12
2005-04-12 13:42 | User Profile
I have a question:
One often hears of Christians who have decided to "accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour" and who claim to be saved thenceforth. Some can say the precise time and day that this momentous event happened; and even write it down for all eternity. Now, from a Lutheran perspective I find the above theologically problematic on several levels. Most notably, Lutherans believe that they're saved thorough God's grace alone and not because they "made a choice for Christ" at some magical point.
Thoughts?
2005-04-12 14:02 | User Profile
IIRC, the Lutherans are influenced by the Calvinistic doctrine that Christians are the "elect" of Christ, as that phrase appears in an epistle of Peter's. It is a determinist viewpoint: God, being omniscient, must know in advance who will accept Christ, so the people who are saved in Christ are the people whom God has willed from the beginning would be saved.
This strikes me as inconsistent with free will, and without free will, Christ's entire life, death, and resurrection was a hollow exercise. If we are just automatons, then there is no need to redeem man from a fallen state. Like the animals, we're just doing what we were designed to do.
I think the premise, that God is omniscient, is used to prove too much. Could God not set in motion a universe with a plethora of possible outcomes? The counter is that a perfectly omniscient being polluted with the possible is a contradiction in terms and cannot exist. The counter to that would be that God, being infinite, must know all possible outcomes, and there is no reason He could not set in motion a universe continually "creating" itself at the margins.
2005-04-12 14:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SteamshipTime]This strikes me as inconsistent with free will, and without free will, Christ's entire life, death, and resurrection was a hollow exercise.[/QUOTE]
Lutherans categorically and emphatically reject any notion of man possessing any kind of 'free will' in obtaining salvation.
As if God cannot act until man gives him the go-ahead and permission. If God's will is not immutable, but rather conditional upon man's "free-will" decisions, then we cannot believe or have faith in the truth of any of God's promises made in the Holy Scriptures.
[url=http://www.covenanter.org/Luther/Bondage/bow_toc.htm]The Bondage of the Will[/url]
2005-04-12 15:13 | User Profile
The Garden of Eden provided Man with a choice. The Deluge was one example where God expressed regret at how things turned out. Another example is where God tells Samuel that He regretted making Saul king of Israel. All of these imply that God contemplated different outcomes.
I don't see how men can be punished for doing things which they are powerless to prevent themselves from doing.
2005-04-12 15:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun] One often hears of Christians who have decided to "accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour" and who claim to be saved thenceforth. Some can say the precise time and day that this momentous event happened; and even write it down for all eternity. Now, from a Lutheran perspective I find the above theologically problematic on several levels. Most notably, Lutherans believe that they're saved thorough God's grace alone and not because they "made a choice for Christ" at some magical point.[/QUOTE] FB -- I think it is the evangelicals who are big on tracing their salvation to a precise point in time. They are also the ones who are big on asking 'have you been saved?' and 'do you know you're going to heaven?' For Lutherans and Calvinists, it is not much of an issue, because as Steamshiptime pointed out (and Tex confirmed) they don't believe that a person has any choice in the matter, so how can you choose to accept Christ? You feel that prompting of the Spirit telling you that you should accept Christ, and this is your tip-off that you are one of the elect. For Catholics and Orthodox, it is also not that much of an issue, because 'accepting Christ,' while important, is just the beginning. You still have to 'work out your salvation with fear and trembling' by taking the sacraments, praying, and growing in Christ.
2005-04-12 15:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SteamshipTime]The Garden of Eden provided Man with a choice.
Yes, it did. Adam ate the fruit and condemned all men. Therefore, being born with original sin, we don't have the same choice that Adam did. Thank heaven for Christ, the second Adam if you will. St. Paul addresses this at length in his epistle to the church in Rome.
The Deluge was one example where God expressed regret at how things turned out. Another example is where God tells Samuel that He regretted making Saul king of Israel. All of these imply that God contemplated different outcomes.
Do you really believe that God regrets or that is simply how the men who penned the Holy Scriptures, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, perceived things from their earthly perspective? Compare it to us still using words like 'sunrise' and 'sunset'.
I don't see how men can be punished for doing things which they are powerless to prevent themselves from doing.[/QUOTE]
Well, all I can say is that you'd have to take that up with St. Paul, Brother ST (see Romans 4 and 5 especially). God's will is immutable and may it ever be so. If you're concerned about things we do have a choice about, then I will tell you that Lutherans confess that man can reject Christ and his own salvation.
The formula is simple: Salvation is entirely and completely because of God. Damnation is entirely and completely because of man.
We may not be able to get our mind around that, but I firmly believe that is what the Scriptures teach and give us.
2005-04-12 16:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]If you're concerned about things we do have a choice about, then I will tell you that Lutherans confess that man can reject Christ and his own salvation.[/QUOTE] Tex, does this mean that Lutherans reject the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace? And if so, how do you square this with your earlier post?
[Quote=Texas Dissident] Lutherans categorically and emphatically reject any notion of man possessing any kind of 'free will' in obtaining salvation.
2005-04-12 16:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Tex, does this mean that Lutherans reject the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace? And if so, how do you square this with your earlier post?[/QUOTE]
As I understand the full ramifications of Calvinistic 'irresistible grace', yes we do reject it.
According to the Scriptures, God desires that all men come to faith (1 Timothy 2:4), the elect are predestined for eternity (Romans 8:28-30; 2 Thessalonians 2:13,14; Ephesians 1:3-7, etc.), but no one has been predestined by God to eternal damnation. Rather, those that are eternally damned are so because of their own willful disbelief and rejection of the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:46; Acts 7:51; Matthew 23:37).
2005-04-12 17:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]As I understand the full ramifications of Calvinistic 'irresistible grace', yes we do reject it. Thanks, I wasn't sure where Lutherans stood on the subject.
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] According to the Scriptures, God desires that all men come to faith (1 Timothy 2:4), the elect are predestined for eternity (Romans 8:28-30; 2 Thessalonians 2:13,14; Ephesians 1:3-7, etc.), but no one has been predestined by God to eternal damnation. Rather, those that are eternally damned are so because of their own willful disbelief and rejection of the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:46; Acts 7:51; Matthew 23:37).[/QUOTE]If they are damned because of willful disbelief, then doesn't this require free will?
2005-04-12 17:32 | User Profile
(1) Perhaps someone can explain why an infinitely holy God, whom the Bible says to be Love itself, would set up creation in such a way that anyone needed saving in the first place?
Some might say God allows evil to exist in order for a "higher good" to be attained. But that's impossible, since God is already supposed to be perfect and infinitely good; God's mere existence alone in the universe is already the highest good attainable. Any goodness that God can bring about from allowing evil to exist, God could bring about without allowing evil. Otherwise God would be dependent on evil. Think about it.
(2) Can someone explain how it's just for God to allow all of mankind to suffer the consequences of Adam's and Eve's sin? Please don't say, "We can't understand God's justice," since the Bible clearly says that human beings know right from wrong (due to the fall of man). And even a child knows that it's wrong to punish someone for something he didn't do.
(3)
As I understand the full ramifications of Calvinistic 'irresistible grace', yes we do reject it. That's good, since Calvinism is plainly unbiblical (supposing for the moment that the Bible is inspired). If grace were "irresistible," then why would Jesus have lamented over Jerusalem, saying, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem how I longed to gather you under my wing as a mother hen gathers her young, but you would not!" John Calvin was a moron.
According to the Scriptures, God desires that all men come to faith (1 Timothy 2:4), the elect are predestined for eternity (Romans 8:28-30; 2 Thessalonians 2:13,14; Ephesians 1:3-7, etc.), but no one has been predestined by God to eternal damnation. Rather, those that are eternally damned are so because of their own willful disbelief and rejection of the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:46; Acts 7:51; Matthew 23:37). There are a couple of problems here. One is that belief and disbelief are not choices; they are reactions to experience and reason (flawed or not). I cannot choose to believe that I can fly or run 1000 mph. Neither can I choose to believe in God if my brain doesn't find the evidence convincing. On the other hand, if I lie to myself and say I don't believe when I really do, then I'm still as much a believer as any Christian. Furthermore, one cannot reject that which one doesn't believe in. I can't reject God unless (1) God speaks to me, (2) I know (or don't have reason to doubt) it's Him doing the speaking, and (3) I turn my back on Him anyway.
The other problem is why some people choose evil when others don't. As it turns out, since God (again supposing He exists) created everything, then He is responsible for everything -- including the factors that lead to men making certain choices. Or take the fall of Lucifer as a more "sterile" example: If Lucifer fell due to pride, then what made Lucifer proud in the first place? The obvious answer is "his Creator: God." Everything, without exception, can be traced back to God. This makes God the author of evil, which is inconsistent with His being wholly good. Again: Infinite goodness has no need of evil to achieve a "higher good," since there is no higher good than infinite goodness (i.e., God).
2005-04-12 17:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]If they are damned because of willful disbelief, then doesn't this require free will?[/QUOTE]
No, because we don't have the ability to choose our own salvation. At bottom, this is why we can be completely sure of our eternal security as regenerated believers or the predestined elect. It is in the hands of God and not merely our own feeble 'decision'.
2005-04-12 18:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler] There are a couple of problems here. One is that belief and disbelief are not choices; they are reactions to experience and reason (flawed or not). I cannot choose to believe that I can fly or run 1000 mph. Neither can I choose to believe in God if my brain doesn't find the evidence convincing. Belief and disbelief most certainly are choices. You can ascertain different types of evidence from different sources (your own eyes, a scientific journal, the television, the Bible), but the choice of which ones, if any, to believe, as well as what conclusion to draw, is definitely a matter of the will.
[QUOTE=Angler] The other problem is why some people choose evil when others don't. As it turns out, since God (again supposing He exists) created everything, then He is responsible for everything -- including the factors that lead to men making certain choices. Or take the fall of Lucifer as a more "sterile" example: If Lucifer fell due to pride, then what made Lucifer proud in the first place? The obvious answer is "his Creator: God." Everything, without exception, can be traced back to God. This makes God the author of evil, which is inconsistent with His being wholly good. Again: Infinite goodness has no need of evil to achieve a "higher good," since there is no higher good than infinite goodness (i.e., God).[/QUOTE]This is why the concept of Free Will is vital. God created people (and Lucifer) to have free will. This means they can choose to love Him, or they can choose to turn away. If God simply made everyone turn towards him all the time, then free will would not truly exist. For there to be a meaningful choice, there must be meaningful consequences. I agree that predestination makes God the author of evil, which is why I reject that doctrine.
2005-04-12 19:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]This is why the concept of Free Will is vital. God created people (and Lucifer) to have free will. This means they can choose to love Him, or they can choose to turn away.
As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” - Romans 3:10-12
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - Romans 3:23
I agree that predestination makes God the author of evil, which is why I reject that doctrine.[/QUOTE]
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. - Romans 8:28-30
But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. - 2 Thess. 2:13
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ*, in accordance with his pleasure and will–to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment–to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession–to the praise of his glory.* - Ephesians 1:3-14
2005-04-12 19:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Belief and disbelief most certainly are choices. You can ascertain different types of evidence from different sources (your own eyes, a scientific journal, the television, the Bible), but the choice of which ones, if any, to believe, as well as what conclusion to draw, is definitely a matter of the will. I don't agree. Again: Are you capable of forcing yourself to believe that you can fly to the moon by flapping your arms? No. And while that's an extreme example, it makes the necessary point: you WILL believe or disbelieve based on the information available to you.
When the available information is incomplete, such factors as upbringing and aspects of your personality play a strong role. There is a reason why belief in Christianity is the norm in some geographical areas while belief in Islam or Hinduism is the standard in others. When a person is born into a certain society and constantly bombarded with messages that reinforce a given religion, then he is much more likely to grow up believing in that religion. It's not like God confines his grace to the Bible Belt or nations like Poland, thus causing a high concentration of Christians there.
If a person tries to believe or disbelieve by picking and choosing what evidence to regard or disregard, then he is merely lying to himself. The only way to be completely honest is to take ALL the evidence and available arguments into consideration.
This is why the concept of Free Will is vital. God created people (and Lucifer) to have free will. This means they can choose to love Him, or they can choose to turn away. If God simply made everyone turn towards him all the time, then free will would not truly exist. For there to be a meaningful choice, there must be meaningful consequences. Actually, there is NO reason why God could not have created everyone to always love Him and obey Him while still having 100% free will. Is this contradictory? Not at all!
Right now, you have the free choice to hammer a nail into your skull if you so choose. No one and nothing is stopping you. But you don't do it. Why not? Because even though you have free will, you don't have the desire to do such a thing. If God created you, then He created you with a natural instinct against doing such things. Now for the key point: Why couldn't God have created people with a natural abhorrence of sin? God could have made sin as appetizing to us as a dog turd while still leaving us free to sin. That would have resulted in a world without temptation, but one in which there was still perfectly free will.
Another way to look at it is this: What will stop people from sinning in heaven? Whatever the answer, why didn't God make all of creation like that from the beginning? As I argued earlier, evil can't exist "for a higher good," since God's existence would already be the highest good possible.
I agree that predestination makes God the author of evil, which is why I reject that doctrine.[/QUOTE]God is the author of evil no matter what. This is shown by a simple syllogism:
(1) God is the only self-existent thing. Everthing else owes its existence to God. (2) Evil exists. (3) Therefore, evil owes its existence to God; i.e., evil's origins are traceable back to God; i.e., God is responsible for evil.
The logic is inescapable: an infinitely powerful and omniscient Being is infinitely responsible for everything. This is why belief in a "personal" God as described by most major religions is illogical.
2005-04-12 19:16 | User Profile
Tex-- All of those verses can be understood as saying that humans are predestined to find their fulfillment in God, and that He has called them to Himself. None of them say God has picked certain folks for heaven and certain folks for hell. What would be the point of creating some humans only to damn them, anyway?
2005-04-12 19:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I don't agree. Again: Are you capable of forcing yourself to believe that you can fly to the moon by flapping your arms? No. And while that's an extreme example, it makes the necessary point: you WILL believe or disbelieve based on the information available to you. I don't agree. If your will was strong enough, you could will yourself to believe this, just as you could believe you were Napolean.
[QUOTE=Angler]It's not like God confines his grace to the Bible Belt or nations like Poland, thus causing a high concentration of Christians there. Of course.
[QUOTE=Angler]Now for the key point: Why couldn't God have created people with a natural abhorrence of sin? In a way, he did. It is called the conscience, and it helps explain why the general code of morality varies so little from place to place and from era to era.
[QUOTE=Angler]God could have made sin as appetizing to us as a dog turd while still leaving us free to sin. That would have resulted in a world without temptation, but one in which there was still perfectly free will. God made us to only be truly happy when we are in communion with Him. That is all 'sin' is -- turning away from God. When we do this, we are unhappy, we are spiritually empty, and our societies fall apart. I think all of these are feedback mechanisms that God put in place to direct us down the correct path.
[QUOTE=Angler]As I argued earlier, evil can't exist "for a higher good," since God's existence would already be the highest good possible. I never claimed evil created a 'higher good.' In fact, evil doesn't have any existence of its own. It is merely the misuse of things that are good of themselves (such as free will or sexuality).
[QUOTE=Angler]God is the author of evil no matter what. This is shown by a simple syllogism:
(1) God is the only self-existent thing. Everthing else owes its existence to God. (2) Evil exists. (3) Therefore, evil owes its existence to God; i.e., evil's origins are traceable back to God; i.e., God is responsible for evil.
The logic is inescapable: an infinitely powerful and omniscient Being is infinitely responsible for everything. This is why belief in a "personal" God as described by most major religions is illogical.[/QUOTE] God created creatures that are in His image. This entails the ability to create and destroy and choose from real options that have real consequences. If your complaint is that we are not all wind-up toys, then I guess it is valid, as far as it goes. The way I see it, though, is that God did not create 'evil;' he gave us the ability to make decisions and to create consequences, so we are the ones who are creating 'evil.' God gave us a gift that can be misused, but that only makes Him the author of evil in a very indirect way, such as how the guy who sold you your hammer is the builder of your house.
2005-04-12 19:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]All of those verses can be understood as saying that humans are predestined to find their fulfillment in God, and that He has called them to Himself. None of them say God has picked certain folks for heaven and certain folks for hell.
With all due respect, I don't think that makes any sense, Quantrill. Please re-read my initial posts from above.
What would be the point of creating some humans only to damn them, anyway?[/QUOTE]
I don't know, Q. Ask a double-predestination Calvinist. I'm a confessing Lutheran (single predestination), though to be fair to my fellow Reformed brethren there is much we do agree on.
2005-04-12 19:49 | User Profile
[B]I think it is the evangelicals who are big on tracing their salvation to a precise point in time. [/B]
Evangelical in Europe is synonymous with Protestant, but I take it you refer to folks like the Southern Baptists and Pentecostals.
2005-04-12 20:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]With all due respect, I don't think that makes any sense, Quantrill. Please re-read my initial posts from above.
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. - Romans 8:28-30
*But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because **from the beginning God chose you to be saved** through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.* - 2 Thess. 2:13
From the beginnning, God chose everyone to be saved. Some people reject Him, and some do not. How does this contradict that?
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]*Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For **he chose us in him before the creation of the world** to be holy and blameless in his sight. **In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ**, in accordance with his pleasure and willââ¬âto the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillmentââ¬âto bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possessionââ¬âto the praise of his glory.* - Ephesians 1:3-14[/QUOTE]He predestined us all to be adopted as His 'sons in Jesus Christ'. Again, I don't see any mention of some people getting an automatic pass into heaven. The fact that He offers His grace to us demonstrates that we are meant to be with Him. I guess I read these verses to have a more general application than you do.
2005-04-12 20:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]**I think it is the evangelicals who are big on tracing their salvation to a precise point in time. **
Evangelical in Europe is synonymous with Protestant, but I take it you refer to folks like the Southern Baptists and Pentecostals.[/QUOTE] FB -- That is correct. Protestants such as the Lutherans, Reformed, and the Anglicans do not place much emphasis on a single moment of being 'saved'.
2005-04-13 00:47 | User Profile
Well, the Lutherans do feel that one is either saved or not saved at any one point in time. What the Evangelicals like to put emphasis on is the "story" of their conversion. A personal narrative that includes how converting to Christianity has made them better people. We Lutherans are a bit more cautious about that area. We see our lives as a continuing struggle against sin and the devil. We freely admit that until we go to heaven we will continue to sin frequently. Thats why we emphasize confession, Holy Communion and "Law and Gospel" preaching.
2005-04-13 05:26 | User Profile
[quote=Quantrill] [quote=Angler]I don't agree. Again: Are you capable of forcing yourself to believe that you can fly to the moon by flapping your arms? No. And while that's an extreme example, it makes the necessary point: you WILL believe or disbelieve based on the information available to you.
I don't agree. If your will was strong enough, you could will yourself to believe this, just as you could believe you were Napolean.
No, I couldn't. The only way I could believe I was Napoleon would be to acquire schizophrenia or ingest a huge amount of LSD.
Perhaps it depends on the person. As far as I'm concerned, even to attempt to force myself to believe something in contradiction to a dispassionate interpretation of the evidence is tantamount to willful self-deception. It's lying to myself, and I'm not capable of it. If God punishes me unbelief, then He puts Himself in the position of punishing someone for being too honest.
In any case, I find that mention of belief as a prerequisite for salvation is scarcely mentioned in the Bible. Where it is mentioned, it is almost certainly an interpolation. Christ taught salvation through works and through showing mercy to our fellow men. (When the rich man asked Jesus what he should do to obtain eternal life, Jesus mentioned the commandments. Then he told the man to sell all he had and give it to the poor -- another interpolation, most likely.)
Jesus also said that we will be judged as we judge others. Unless Christ was lying when he said that, I cannot be sent to hell, since I judge no other human being fit for hell. I would not even want to send an insect into eternal torment, and I do not believe that a God who is said to be love can also be infinitely cruel.
[quote=Quantrill] [quote=Angler]Now for the key point: Why couldn't God have created people with a natural abhorrence of sin?
In a way, he did. It is called the conscience, and it helps explain why the general code of morality varies so little from place to place and from era to era. No, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about a natural abhorrence as strong as, say, our natural instinct to pull our hand away from a hot stove. God could have done this and retained our free will. But He didn't. That means God made a choice to allow evil into the world. That's incompatible with an entirely good God.
Also, the reason moral codes are more or less constant is that human beings are social animals with natural instincts toward tribalism and cooperation with members of one's tribe. This is also observed in lower animals. Such instincts are explainable in terms of evolution, since cooperative behavior clearly aids survival.
[quote=Quantrill] [quote=Angler] God could have made sin as appetizing to us as a dog turd while still leaving us free to sin. That would have resulted in a world without temptation, but one in which there was still perfectly free will.
God made us to only be truly happy when we are in communion with Him. That is all 'sin' is -- turning away from God. When we do this, we are unhappy, we are spiritually empty, and our societies fall apart. I think all of these are feedback mechanisms that God put in place to direct us down the correct path. I don't agree. Although I would like to have eternal life, I have no need of God for happiness in my life. Neither do I have a need for threats from some God to keep my behavior proper. I do what I think is right simply because I want to, without any expectation of reward or punishment.
[quote=Quantrill] [quote=Angler]As I argued earlier, evil can't exist "for a higher good," since God's existence would already be the highest good possible.
I never claimed evil created a 'higher good.' In fact, evil doesn't have any existence of its own. It is merely the misuse of things that are good of themselves (such as free will or sexuality). You might not have claimed it, but the existence of evil is widely maintained among Christians. Most Christians believe in a supremely evil entity -- the Devil -- who tempts mankind. For God to allow such a being to exist -- indeed, for God to have created Lucifer in the first place, in the full knowledge that he would rebel -- contradicts God's goodness.
[quote=Quantrill] [quote=Angler] God is the author of evil no matter what. This is shown by a simple syllogism:
(1) God is the only self-existent thing. Everthing else owes its existence to God. (2) Evil exists. (3) Therefore, evil owes its existence to God; i.e., evil's origins are traceable back to God; i.e., God is responsible for evil.
The logic is inescapable: an infinitely powerful and omniscient Being is infinitely responsible for everything. This is why belief in a "personal" God as described by most major religions is illogical.
God created creatures that are in His image. This entails the ability to create and destroy and choose from real options that have real consequences. If your complaint is that we are not all wind-up toys, then I guess it is valid, as far as it goes. Under the scenario I described earlier, we would not be "wind-up toys." Are you a wind-up toy because you have a very strong desire to avoid burning yourself when you're near a hot stove? No. You still have free will. You could stuff yourself in the over if you really wanted to -- you just have no desire to do so. God could have easily made everyone like that with respect to sin; He simply chose not to. Even worse, His existence is hidden (although the Bible would have us believe that He sends angels to talk to mortals on a routine basis), and we all know the cliche, "Out of sight, out of mind." If God had put some kind of obvious, permanent sign in the sky -- maybe one saying, "I'm watching you -- behave!" -- then people would certainly think a lot more before they sinned.
The point is that God deliberately set up creation such that sin would exist when He didn't have to. How can we escape that conclusion? And if we accept it, then we contradict God's perfect goodness.
The way I see it, though, is that God did not create 'evil;' he gave us the ability to make decisions and to create consequences, so we are the ones who are creating 'evil.' God gave us a gift that can be misused, but that only makes Him the author of evil in a very indirect way, such as how the guy who sold you your hammer is the builder of your house. The latter analogy does not hold; since the guy who sold me the hammer does not know what I'm going to do with it, he is not responsible for my actions with that hammer, whether building a homeless shelter or using it as a murder weapon. God, however, is conceived of as omniscient. When God created Lucifer, He did it in the full knowledge that Lucifer would rebel and become the downfall of mankind. That was a deliberate choice on God's part. God could have done things differently. He could have (1) simply not created Lucifer, or (2) created Lucifer with a less prideful personality, like the angels who didn't rebel. At the very least, God could have simply punished Lucifer and prevented him from having any contact with human beings. But God apparently loved mankind so much that He decided to allow many men to be damned.
Do you see where I'm coming from? Considerations such as these, combined with the lack of reliable extra-biblical evidence for Jesus' miracles and life events, and the obvious contradictions between the Bible and science, AND the obvious contradictions in the Bible requiring highly convoluted apologetics (e.g., salvation by faith versus works -- the Bible supports both), AND the clear injustice of the concepts of original sin and of vicarious virtue and vice...the case against Christianity is just overwhelming.
At this point I am 99.9999% sure that all religions are false. It was painful for me to admit that, but I couldn't help it. Now I've come to disdain religion in general, though I have nothing against most religious people themselves (the people in the world I love most are all Christians). I still think there could be a God, but if there is, then I suspect it's an impersonal one of the sort Albert Einstein and others have considered.
2005-04-13 14:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler] No, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about a natural abhorrence as strong as, say, our natural instinct to pull our hand away from a hot stove. God could have done this and retained our free will. But He didn't. That means God made a choice to allow evil into the world. That's incompatible with an entirely good God. Pulling your hand away from something hot is a reflex, so it doesn't really involve a choice. As for your earlier example of making us have a disgust of sin such as a disgust of eating feces or hurting ourselves, perhaps you are aware that there are perverted and unstable people who do both of these things, although it is quite clear to the rest of us that they are both a bad idea. So, as long as there is a real choice allowed, some people will make the wrong one, even if there are strong incentives not to do so.
[QUOTE=Angler]I don't agree. Although I would like to have eternal life, I have no need of God for happiness in my life. Neither do I have a need for threats from some God to keep my behavior proper. I do what I think is right simply because I want to, without any expectation of reward or punishment. What is 'proper' behaviour? How do you decide what is 'right'? Without the concept of God, or some other absolute morality outside ourselves, concepts of 'right' and 'proper' are totally arbitrary human conventions.
[QUOTE=Angler] The point is that God deliberately set up creation such that sin would exist when He didn't have to. How can we escape that conclusion? And if we accept it, then we contradict God's perfect goodness. He set up creation such that sin could exist, and I maintain that this is necessary for free will to exist. How is designing us so that we always, always, always choose the right thing any different from designing us without the freedom to choose?
This is a disagreement on fundamentals, and I am skeptical that either of us is going to convince the other. To me, it seems fairly straightforward -- God designed us with free will, so that we may choose to have a relationship with him or not. He also designed us so that we would only be truly happy and fulfilled if we enter into that relationship. If we do so, then we experience God forever, and this is heaven. If we decide that we don't want anything to do with God, then we experience God forever, and this is hell.
Good luck with the whole godless-but-still-virtuous thing. I hope it works out.
2005-04-13 23:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]I have a question:
One often hears of Christians who have decided to "accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour" and who claim to be saved thenceforth. Some can say the precise... Thoughts?[/QUOTE] It's the "decided" part that gets me...do you really decide? Isn't it more like the point at which you realize Chirst is your Lord and Savior?
I really don't think I "got" the concept, actually understood it, until I was out of college for a little over a year. And it was more years before I really started to appreciate it.
2005-04-14 11:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]I have a question:
One often hears of Christians who have decided to "accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour" and who claim to be saved thenceforth. Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
It is quite the opposite.
2005-04-14 12:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]It's the "decided" part that gets me...do you really decide? Isn't it more like the point at which you realize Chirst is your Lord and Savior? [/QUOTE]
Maybe some of these Q&As will help:
QUESTION:
Hebrews 6:4-6, warns against falling away from the faith and those who do, cannot not be brought back to repentance because they are "crucifying the Son of God all over again." I must admit this passage has always concerned me, as there have been many short periods in my Christian walk that I have not always lived an exemplary life and have willfully sinned against God. I equate these times in my life as living in a "backsliden state" (a popular term in my Protestant circle). Hence, I figure that I have fallen away from the faith for a time. I must say that during these times I never denied the Lord and always had a yearning in my heart to return to the fold. The Protestant tradition that I come from teaches once saved always saved. This gave me some degree of comfort, for when I approached God for forgiveness I looked to such passages as 1 John 1: 9. I have spent many sleepless nights wondering about this forgiveness issue. I want to live a Christian life but it's a tough road. Since I have been reading about Orthodoxy many of the core beliefs that I have held so dear for so many years are being challenged, however I am becoming more and more convinced that this is the Church that Christ founded. Having said all that, my questions are this: Is the passage in Hebrews 6:4-6 referring to Christians who have backslided? And, can a "professing Protestant Christian" like myself who has gone through periods willful sinfulness and periods of worldliness still become an Orthodox Christian? I hope I haven't "blown it." I know these questions are probably pretty heavy for an e-mail and you know absolutely nothing about me. However, if you could provide some guidance it would be appreciated
ANSWER:
Thank you for your interesting enquiry.
Before getting into the passage from Hebrews, there are a few things that need to be stated. First, Orthodoxy, unlike some Protestant bodies, does not hold to the notion that we are "already saved." For Orthodox Christians, salvation is a process, not a once-and-done event. It is because of the understanding of some Protestant bodies which hold that one is saved at a precise moment -- when one makes a commitment to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, or at some other moment in time -- that much confusion arises. Orthodox Christianity understands that we are "being saved," not "already saved."
Salvation, for Orthodox Christians, is seen as deliverance from the curse of sin and death, which makes it possible for us to enter into union with God through Christ the Savior. Salvation includes a process of growth of the whole person whereby the sinner is transformed into the image and likeness of God. One is saved by faith through grace, although saving faith involves more than belief. Faith must be active and living, manifested by works of righteousness, whereby we cooperate with God to do His will. Hence, if one is "being saved," one is on the way to one's ultimate goal: eternal union with God and participation in the divine nature, as Saint Paul writes.
As a side note, the notion that one is already saved -- and that one can know this absolutely and positively without taking into consideration where one's life may lead one in the future -- has always struck Orthodox Christianity as a bit odd. If one is already saved, then what need does one still have for a Savior? Is this not like saying that one who has been completely cured of cancer is still in need of chemo-therapy? Or is this not like saying that one who has been cured of cancer will never find the disease surfacing again, perhaps years hence? In the Gospels Christ says, "I come not to save the righteous, but the sinner," and He goes on to make this very comparison with the individual who is physically ill as the one who needs a physician, rather than the one who is in perfect physical health. The essential question is, "If I have already been saved, then what more can the Savior do for me?" Another question that comes out of these considerations is, "If 'once saved, always saved' is the maxim, would this imply that if I go on to lead an extremely evil life it ultimately does not matter since I have already been saved?" When one acknowledges, as the Orthodox Faith teaches, that we are "being saved," such considerations do not arise.
Now, let us turn to Hebrews 6:4-6. Of course, Saint Paul is writing to the Hebrews, and herein he refers to those who have apostasized -- that is, to those who rejected Christ and His saving power after their Baptism. By virtue of the fact that you state that you have "never denied the Lord and always had a yearning in [your] heart to return to the fold," you are not describing apostasy; rather, you are describing what can be variously termed "inactivity," "lack of living your Faith," etc., but what you describe as having experienced is not a total denial or rejection of Christ and/or His saving power. Hence, while non-Orthodox may term what you have experienced as "apostasy," Orthodoxy would say that this is the situation in which you have placed yourself.
Concerning verse 4, we find reference to the Sacraments of Initiation: Baptism ["once enlightened"], Chrismation ["partakers of the Holy Spirit"], and the Eucharist ["tasted the heavenly gift"]. Verse 5 tells us that in adition to the grace, or presence of God, we receive through the Sacraments, belief and life experience are essential. "Tasted the good word of God" refers to the message of the Gospel and the true doctrine of God's People, the Church. In verse 6 we find Saint Paul stating that those to whom he is writing -- remember, they are Jews -- who revert to Judaism [not uncommon in apostolic times] crucify Christ once again, becoming like those who, in crucifying Christ on the Cross denied His divinity and His saving power. Such baptized individuals put themselves in a position of needing to be baptized again, although this is not possible as "once enlightened" refers to the fact that Baptism is experienced once and only once. [This is reflected in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: "I believe in one Baptism for the remission of sins."
We might digress here for a moment to say that in the Orthodox understanding, Baptism is our participation in the death and resurrection of Christ; as Saint Paul writes, in Baptism we are buried with Him, we rise with Him, and we "put Him on," clothing ourselves in His righteousness and glory. Baptism, which is commanded by Christ and essential for our salvation, is not an end in itself, nor is it the "goal" of Christian life; rather, just as one is physically born from his or her mother's womb, so too one is "born again" of water and the Spirit in the Sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation. These sacraments mark the beginning of one's spiritual life, one's life as a Christian, just as physical birth marks the beginning of our physical life and growth and development. Of course, most Protestant bodies understand Baptism somewhat differently, as does Roman Catholicism.
To conclude, it is impossible to clearly understand the meaning of this passage from Hebrews apart from understanding the precise audience to which Saint Paul was directing his words: those Jews [but surely not all Jews] who had begun their spiritual journies through Baptism, yet who then rejected Christ and His power. If one has not done this -- and this is not what you describe about your own situation -- then these verses would not directly apply. Now, Orthodox Christianity does hold that, after one has been "born again" through Baptism, Christmation and the Eucharist, one can surely fall away or "miss the mark" of his or her calling to live as Christ lived. One can surely "de-activate," so to speak, the grace imparted in these Sacraments; at the same time, God remains present in such persons, even if they do not recognize or acknowledge it. [It's not as if God says, "Okay, that's it!! You keep sinning, and you don't seem to care about it, so I'm leaving and I'll make sure I never return."] God is everywhere, filling all things -- including the lives of those who have failed to live in accordance with His precepts and even in those who are blatantly evil. As Christ Himself says, God allows the sun to shine and the rain to fall on the good and evil alike, and all are God's children, His creation, worthy of being saved, even if they have yet to "work out [their] own salvation."
In the Orthodox Church, we understand that regardless of how sinful we become, even after being born again through water and the Spirit, we always have the possibility to repent, to change our direction and our vision and our hearts. Those "who have eyes, but refuse to see" and those "who have ears, but refuse to listen," we must remember, have not had their eyes plucked out or their ears cut off; they can indeed see and hear, yet they choose not to. They can, however, repent and open their eyes and their ears, should they choose to respond to God's lovingkindness, mercy and forgiveness. In the Gospel of the Prodigal Son, we see the extent of our heavenly Father's forgiveness. The son "came to his senses" and returned to his father. His father accepted him back, no strings attached, rejoicing that his son, who had been lost and dead, was now found and was now alive. His father forgave him unconditionally, in response to his unconditional repentance. In the same way, in this parable Christ teaches us that God forgives us unconditionally, assuming that we too "come to [our] senses," repent, return, ask humbly for forgiveness, and receive His forgiveness with the same humility with which we sought it. In the case of one who has apostasized, however, this is not possible. First of all, the apostate -- the one who denies that Christ has any power in our lives or who denies His divinity or His love for His People -- has yet to "come to his senses." While God continues to reach out, the apostate not only refuses to reach out, but would agree that reaching out to a Christ Who is powerless or useless or even non-existent is nothing more than an exercise in futility. If one denies that Christ has any saving power whatsoever, one would not even entertain the thought of renewing his or her life in Christ. What good would it do? What affect would it have? If one is convinced that Christ is powerless, or worse, that He does not even exist, then one would surely not be inclined to reach out to Him.
Nevertheless, the Church, since ancient times, has acknowledged that those who have apostasized may indeed repent and be brought back into the Church after a period of repentance, as evidenced in several Canons of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, the Canons of the Council of Ancyra in 314 AD, and other early Christian writings. Returning to God's forgiveness, Orthodox Christians believe that in our daily prayer we should continually ask God to forgive us and to have mercy on us, trusting that indeed "God does not desire the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his sin and live," as we read in Psalms. This, of course, presumes that the sinner still acknowledges that Christ indeed has saving power, that He indeed loves us, and that He indeed accepts those who, having come to their senses and having acknowledged that they have "missed the mark," cry out in repentance. Orthodox Christians also believe that, in addition to asking God for forgiveness in our private prayers, we should confess our sins sacramentally, thereby being reunited to Christ and to the faith community which whom we have broken communion through sin. Since most Protestants reject the Sacrament of Confession, they provide no real options or opportunities for reconciliation after they have "backslided" or, as we would say, after they have cut themselves off from the common union which they had shared with Father, Son and Holy Spirit and with the People of God. While some Protestants would say that once a person is saved, he or she is always saved, and other Protestants would say that once a person is saved, he or she can lose his or her salvation, Orthodoxy, by virtue of its understanding of salvation as an ongoing process of spiritual growth, would say that one can indeed jeopardize one's salvation, but that it is not realistic to say that one has "lost" something that one has yet to experience or possess in its fullness. We continually endure spiritual warfare, struggling against temptation and sin and evil and the delightful thought of doing our own will, even if it conflicts with the will of our Creator. That is why it is of great comfort to know that, if Our Lord commands us to "forgive seventy times seven," it is only because He is willing to forgive us at least that many times, provided that we, like the prodigal son, come to our senses, return to our Father, ask Him to accept us back into loving communion with Him, and humbly open ourselves to begin our journey to the salvation which finds its fulfillment in His Kingdom once again. Hence, while we travel the "superhighway" of salvation, we indeed can encounter a multitude of roadblocks and detours. We surely can get lost, either by getting off a wrong exit or by thinking that we can find our way without a map or directions. But if we are to reach our destination -- in this case, the Kingdom of God -- we need to circumvent the roadblocks, endure the detrous, and ultimately ask directions, that we might get back on the right road or path. At the end of our earthly lives, as we complete our journey to salvation, we will indeed "rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is [our] reward in heaven."
While I am not sure if this answers your specific questions, since as you yourself acknowledge this is difficult given the fact that I do not know you personally, I hope it at least provides a new way to look at the "same old things," and perhaps even a new way to look at some things that may indeed seem new.
QUESTION:
A protestant told me that just believing in Jesus is enough to get one into heaven. This isn't what I was taught, or is my memory incorrect? Please clarify this. These born-again Christians can be very insulting to us.
ANSWER:
Orthodox Christianity teaches that belief in Jesus must be combined with putting that belief into action -- feeding the hungry, ministering to others, etc. Both essential.
We read in the epistles: "Faith without works is dead."
One can indeed "believe" in Christ and yet lead a life that betrays that belief. Hence belief alone is not sufficient. "Not all who say 'Lord, Lord' will have a place in my Kingdom."
QUESTION:
I was reading your answers about faith and life. I have been raised to believe that grace is all that is necessary for salvation... no works. But having read the verse from James that you quoted about faith without works being dead, it now makes sense that works go with faith. But how many works are necessary for salvation?
ANSWER:
There is no "required amount" of works that are necessary for salvation. What is crucial is that, if we indeed have faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, that we manifest or reveal our faith in how we live and how we treat others.
Read Matthew 25:31-46, in which we find the parable of the sheep and goats. In this parable, Christ reveals that which He will ask of us when He judges us, as well as that which He expects from those who call themselves by His name. He asks if we have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, given drink to the thirsty, ministered to the sick and imprisoned -- and, of utmost importance, whether we have discerned His very image in those around us, especially the "least of the brethren." If we fail to put our faith into action through such works of mercy, our faith is purely intellectual, "lip service," so to speak. Simply stated, if we accept Christ as the Son of the Living God and the Savior of the world, yet we fail to bring His love to others around us, then we are liars. Hence, faith without such good works is dead, and it is precisely on our willingness to put our faith into action that our eternal salvation hinges, as Christ reveals in Matthew 25.
2005-04-14 13:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]A protestant told me that just believing in Jesus is enough to get one into heaven. QUOTE]
That's what I believe.
I do think faith will inspire you to do good works. But, the value of any good works performed by me, or any other man is of questionable value. :rolleyes:
2005-04-14 14:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch][QUOTE=wild_bill] I do think faith will inspire you to do good works. But, the value of any good works performed by me, or any other man is of questionable value. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] The value of works is that they are an expression of sincere faith and of a relationship with Christ. Any faith without works is, de facto, not real faith.
2005-04-14 14:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]What is 'proper' behaviour? How do you decide what is 'right'? Without the concept of God, or some other absolute morality outside ourselves, concepts of 'right' and 'proper' are totally arbitrary human conventions.[/QUOTE] I guess you could define morality in functional terms as whatever set of social norms lead to a self-sustaining society that has a survival advantage relative to competing societies that do not adhere to these principles. Moral teachings are really just self-preservation instincts applied at the social level. Since some social rules "work" and lead to strong healthy societies, and other's plainly don't (e.g. mutiracialism), there is an absolute criteria to judge our morality against that exists outside of ourselves and our personal preferences, but does not involve or require a God. Think of it this way - can you think of any valid moral principle that if adhered to would lead to the destruction of society?
It's presumptuous to speak on others behalf, but I would think that most people here have a strong dislike of leftist "anti-racist" PC-morality primarily because at some intuitive level we sense that it is ultimately destructive to our society and as such is intrinsically immmoral.
I happen to believe in God, but I don't think that religious belief is necessary in order to uphold a consistent set of moral principles. I do admit however, that lack of belief in God does lead to an erosion of public morality, especially amongst people of low intellect or poor character.
2005-04-14 14:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper] I happen to believe in God, but I don't think that religious belief is necessary in order to uphold a consistent set of moral principles. I do admit however, that lack of belief in God does lead to an erosion of public morality, especially amongst people of low intellect or poor character.[/QUOTE] I never stated that religious belief is necessary to uphold a consistent set of moral principles. I merely stated that that set of principles would be an arbitrary human convention, and so it would. It would be based on nothing more than whatever each individual could determine, based upon his own reason (however well- or poorly-developed), to be the course of action that was most advantageous to himself. He might take into consideration what was most beneficial to society, but he would be under no compunction to do so, since his personal idea of morality could be exclusively self-centered. Perhaps his reason dictates that his only duty is to perpetuate his own genes.
2005-04-14 14:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]The value of works is that they are an expression of sincere faith and of a relationship with Christ. Any faith without works is, de facto, not real faith.[/QUOTE] Men are not infallible, any works we perform are potentially flawed, and probably are flawed.
As I said before, faith may lead us to attempt good works, but, that does not mean the attempted good works will be good works.
2005-04-14 15:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]Men are not infallible, any works we perform are potentially flawed, and probably are flawed.
To be scripturally precise, there are as filthy rags, completely worthless in the matter of what justifies us before God. The scriptures tell us that we are spiritually dead in our transgressions. Flat-lining. And dead folks can't do anything, much less perform any works that will make us more acceptable to a holy and righteous God. Of course the Good News is that almost 2000 years ago, Jesus Christ died on the cross to atone for all our sin. When the Holy Ghost brings us to faith (note we don't decide to do this ourselves 'cause we can't, John 6:44), then Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. That doesn't make us any more holy or righteous, we are still fallen sinners. But(!), now we are not only justified by faith in Christ, but we also get the Holy Ghost who constantly works in us to perform the good works we read about in James and elsewhere.
It's critically important not to get justification mixed up with other things like sanctification.
2005-04-14 16:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]To be scripturally precise, there are as filthy rags, completely worthless in the matter of what justifies us before God.[/QUOTE]
Yep. Faith in Jesus Christ justifies our salvation. If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit a/k/a the Holy Ghost won't be of much help. :yes: By the same token the Holy Spirit can and will lead you to belief in Jesus Christ.
2005-04-14 17:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]I have a question:
One often hears of Christians who have decided to "accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour" and who claim to be saved thenceforth. Some can say the precise time and day that this momentous event happened; and even write it down for all eternity. Now, from a Lutheran perspective I find the above theologically problematic on several levels. Most notably, Lutherans believe that they're saved thorough God's grace alone and not because they "made a choice for Christ" at some magical point.
Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
Fred,
I had forgotten about this article, but a few years back it made quite an impact shaping my beliefs on this exact subject. I think you'll find it very informative if you are interested:
'Decision Theology in the Light of Scripture' by Daniel S. Drews
2005-04-14 18:33 | User Profile
Thank you (saved).
I'll read it with interest. I was especially bothered recently when a Lutheran I know seemed to espouse theology that is patently foreign to Lutheran thinking. I ascribe that to his ignorance and to the overwhelming presence and influence of Evangelicals in the North American context.
2005-04-14 21:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch][QUOTE=wild_bill]A protestant told me that just believing in Jesus is enough to get one into heaven. QUOTE]
That's what I believe.
I do think faith will inspire you to do good works. But, the value of any good works performed by me, or any other man is of questionable value. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Just believing is not enough. Heck, the devil believes.
2005-04-14 22:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Heck, the devil believes.[/QUOTE]
...that there is 'one God'. (James 2:19)
And devils and demons are spirit. Christ died for fallen flesh and blood men like you and me, wb.
2005-04-15 00:52 | User Profile
According to Jesus, mere belief is NOT enough. That's clearly what he meant when he said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter heaven but only the one who does the will of my Father."
The Bible also describes the Last Judgment as Christ separating those who helped their fellow men from those who didn't. "I was hungry and you gave me food...I was thirsty and you gave me drink...", etc. According to that passage, those who were helping Jesus didn't even know it. They were just trying to help others in need.
Finally, there was the rich man who asked Jesus point-blank what he had to do to get into heaven. Jesus' answer? Keep the commandments. Nothing about belief there.
Other ways to be "blessed" are described in the Sermon on the Mount. If memory serves, not one of them has anything to do with mere belief.
Finally, Jesus said that you will be judged as you judge others. If that's true, then the only way to deserve hell is to judge someone else as worthy of hell.
Of course, there are other passages where Jesus says that faith is important. Since those are clearly contradictory to the above passages, they are probably interpolations (Biblical scholars are well aware that the Bible is full of such things). This is especially evident when we consider that there is obviously nothing moral or immoral about belief or unbelief in anything. Now, if I were an unprincipled mortal who sought to control people and get them to follow my religion, then I would certainly threaten unbelievers and apostates....
2005-04-15 01:07 | User Profile
According to reason we are as intelligent in these (spiritual) matters as a cow. And if intelligence counted for anything, I could probably construct a religion better than you. But here, we are not in a tavern. We are in a Christian church where we must believe not what reason thinks is right or what pleases me or you, but what the Scriptures tell us.
According to reason we are as intelligent in these (spiritual) matters as a cow. And if intelligence counted for anything, I could probably construct a religion better than you. But here, we are not in a tavern. We are of the Muslim faith where we must believe not what reason thinks is right or what pleases me or you, but what the Holy Koran tells us.
Tell me, Tex: Which of the above is the better "argument"? Why?
Without reason, man is a sheep to be shorn by those who hunger for power. People like Martin Luther, for example. "Don't think. Don't question. Just obey. God will reward you -- after you die, of course."
2005-04-15 02:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]According to Jesus, mere belief is NOT enough. That's clearly what he meant when he said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter heaven but only the one who does the will of my Father."
The Bible also describes the Last Judgment as Christ separating those who helped their fellow men from those who didn't. "I was hungry and you gave me food...I was thirsty and you gave me drink...", etc. According to that passage, those who were helping Jesus didn't even know it. They were just trying to help others in need.
Finally, there was the rich man who asked Jesus point-blank what he had to do to get into heaven. Jesus' answer? Keep the commandments. Nothing about belief there.
Other ways to be "blessed" are described in the Sermon on the Mount. If memory serves, not one of them has anything to do with mere belief.
Finally, Jesus said that you will be judged as you judge others. If that's true, then the only way to deserve hell is to judge someone else as worthy of hell.
[SIZE=4][B]"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me." John 14[/B][/SIZE]
Tex - Your eloquence on religion is really touching. I'm reminded of being in a Lutheran grade school, hearing much of what you reiterate here, and not hearing it on Sunda mornings these days. My wife is a Lutheran as well, and I'm not sure she knows what you teach.
My teachers used to say: "God loved you. He chose you to be saved." I used to say, then what if I say no? Well Tex - - - what then?
2005-04-15 06:33 | User Profile
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me." John 14 Even if Jesus really said these words, all they mean is that only Jesus makes it possible to come to the Father. They don't say anything about the necessity of belief.
Here's an analogy. We can truthfully say, "No monkey has ever gotten into orbit around the earth without a rocket." Does that mean a monkey has to believe anything to be put into orbit?
Nevertheless, I do recognize that there are passages in the Bible that state the central importance of belief for salvation. But those passages plainly contradict the others I've mentioned. To deny that is to engage in willful self-deception and extreme doublethink.
2005-04-15 12:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Just believing is not enough. Heck, the devil believes.[/QUOTE] If you do not believe in Jesus Christ, all of the good works in the world will not save you.
2005-04-15 14:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler] Nevertheless, I do recognize that there are passages in the Bible that state the central importance of belief for salvation. But those passages plainly contradict the others I've mentioned. To deny that is to engage in willful self-deception and extreme doublethink.[/QUOTE] I don't think they 'plainly contradict' the passages that indicate that works are important. Rather, I think that, taken together, they indicate the synergy between faith and works that is Orthodox and Catholic doctrine.
2005-04-15 16:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]My teachers used to say: "God loved you. He chose you to be saved." I used to say, then what if I say no? Well Tex - - - what then?[/QUOTE]
You know the answer to that, jay.
2005-04-15 16:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Tell me, Tex: Which of the above is the better "argument"? Why?
Luther's 'Christian Church' is the better one because it is the True one.
Without reason, man is a sheep to be shorn by those who hunger for power. People like Martin Luther, for example. "Don't think. Don't question. Just obey. God will reward you -- after you die, of course."[/QUOTE]
Without God, man is a sheep, period.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Luther is saying, Angler.
2005-04-15 16:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]...that there is 'one God'. (James 2:19)
And devils and demons are spirit. Christ died for fallen flesh and blood men like you and me, wb.[/QUOTE]
Jesus rules! :thumbsup:
Would that His righteous knout could thrash today's moneychangers...the Plutocracy has never before been so soul-stiflingly arrogant.
2005-04-15 16:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I don't think they 'plainly contradict' the passages that indicate that works are important. Rather, I think that, taken together, they indicate the synergy between faith and works that is Orthodox and Catholic doctrine.[/QUOTE]
Not original Catholic doctrine of Augustine and Ambrose.
Redemption by the blood of Christ would become of little value, neither would the preeminence of man’s works be superseded by the mercy of God, if justification, which is wrought through grace, were due to the merits going before, so as to be, not the free gift of a donor, but the reward due to the laborer. - St. Ambrose from 'De Vocatione Gentium'
Oh, how I wish all of you could truly know the pure Gospel, plainly stated by St. Paul in Romans 5:1-3 and abundantly throughout the Old and New Testaments. To not have your consciences plagued by works-based doctrines so characteristic of jewish law and to know the full freedom that is a Christian's in the pure Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
2005-04-15 17:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] Redemption by the blood of Christ would become of little value, neither would the preeminence of manââ¬â¢s works be superseded by the mercy of God, if justification, which is wrought through grace, were due to the merits going before, so as to be, not the free gift of a donor, but the reward due to the laborer. - St. Ambrose from 'De Vocatione Gentium'[/QUOTE] Tex, Salvation is a 'free gift of a donor' and nothing we could do alone would achieve it. However, we can, and are expected to, work along with God's grace to the best of our ability. It is a little bit like when you help a very small child to swim. You are keeping them afloat, and you are moving them forward, but they are kicking a little bit, too. Would their little tiny bit of kicking let them swim without your help? Nope. But if they weren't kicking, then they wouldn't be swimming at all, they would just be being dragged along. God doesn't need our help, and our efforts alone would be pointless. He condescends to allow us to cooperate with Him as a means for our own spiritual growth.
2005-04-15 17:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Tex, Salvation is a 'free gift of a donor' and nothing we could do alone would achieve it. However, we can, and are expected to, work along with God's grace to the best of our ability. It is a little bit like when you help a very small child to swim. You are keeping them afloat, and you are moving them forward, but they are kicking a little bit, too. Would their little tiny bit of kicking let them swim without your help? Nope. But if they weren't kicking, then they wouldn't be swimming at all, they would just be being dragged along. God doesn't need our help, and our efforts alone would be pointless. He condescends to allow us to cooperate with Him as a means for our own spiritual growth.[/QUOTE]
We are freely justified before God by faith alone in Jesus Christ. Good works are the fruit of that saving faith. Man has always wanted to add that little something we can do ourselves to obtain salvation, but alas, that is not the pure Gospel. Again, we must be very diligent and careful not to confuse justification and sanctification.
Best regards to you, Q.
2005-04-15 18:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Angler]According to Jesus, mere belief is NOT enough. That's clearly what he meant when he said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter heaven but only the one who does the will of my Father."
The key is to understand that the consequences of sin are both eternal (which we cannot see) and temporal (the horrors we see around us). At times the Scriptures speak of the eternal consequences, at other times of the temporal consequences, of sin. The "faith vs. works" paradox is thus resolved.
From the Catechism:
[QUOTE]1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84
1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."85[/QUOTE]
2005-04-15 18:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The Council of Trent resolved all of this beautifully. There is no contradiction here.
The key is to understand that the consequences of sin are both eternal (which we cannot see) and temporal (the horrors we see around us). At times the Scriptures speak of the eternal consequences, at other times of the temporal consequences, of sin. The "faith vs. works" paradox is thus resolved.
From the Catechism:[/QUOTE] You forget the third key of the Reformation: Every man his own priest, or for that matter his own pope.:yes:
2005-04-15 19:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]You forget the third key of the Reformation: Every man his own priest, or for that matter his own pope.:yes:[/QUOTE]
I didn't forget that, Pennsylvania.
It's called Democwacy! :thumbsup:
2005-04-15 23:16 | User Profile
Well guys I finally had to jump in, I believe in Jesus as a teacher for what he teaches is what any good man would teach but not as the "son" of the one you call God because what man makes man can destroy.
The so called religion is the good that you carry in you and not what others tells you that religion is.
The one you call "God" is already in you and he dosen't need books (Bibles) or buildings (churches) in order to be with you.
But hey, if all that stuff makes you fell more secure then keep on trucking because I know that once you find the one you call "God" you will also find out that that's all you need.
2005-04-16 00:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]If you do not believe in Jesus Christ, all of the good works in the world will not save you.[/QUOTE]
Believing is a pre-requisite, of course, but "faith without works is dead." I definitely recall reading that somewhere.
2005-04-16 00:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Well guys I finally had to jump in, I believe in Jesus as a teacher for what he teaches is what any good man would teach but not as the "son" of the one you call God because what man makes man can destroy.
The so called religion is the good that you carry in you and not what others tells you that religion is.
The one you call "God" is already in you and he dosen't need books (Bibles) or buildings (churches) in order to be with you.
But hey, if all that stuff makes you fell more secure then keep on trucking because I know that once you find the one you call "God" you will also find out that that's all you need.[/QUOTE]
Ok, so you have your own religion, but its not Christianity.
2005-04-16 01:29 | User Profile
Wild? I don't have a so called "religion", to me religion is a back pack that you carry only because you want to and at the same time a pair of handcuff that keeps you in place.
2005-04-16 08:13 | User Profile
"faith without works is dead."
I read that in Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina.
2005-04-16 09:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]"faith without works is dead."
I read that in Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina.[/QUOTE]
Its in the Bible to besides being what the Church has taught for many centuries.
2005-04-16 11:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Luther's 'Christian Church' is the better one because it is the True one. Ah, I see. That clears it up!
Would you mind revealing how you came to that conclusion? Especially since you're not supposed to use your reason in "spiritual matters"?
Let me put it this way. Suppose for a moment that Christianity is false. How would you know?
Without God, man is a sheep, period. How do you figure? Your definition of "sheep" must be very different from the standard metaphor, which generally refers to people who don't think for themselves.
I'm without God, and I'm not a sheep. I have no master; I do as I please, think as I please, and live life to the fullest. I'm very happy with my own life, knowing that it won't be wasted. But when I (rarely) turn on the TV on Sunday morning and see all those people with their hands in the air and tears streaming down their cheeks, "praising God" as Benny Hinn or Robert Tilton "cures" another blind or crippled person, I feel genuine pity for them. They may "have God" as a figment of their imagination, but that's all they have.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Luther is saying, Angler.[/QUOTE]You mean he's not telling his flock to "pluck out the eyes of their reason"? He's not telling people to assume facts not in evidence?
My main question for Luther would be: If Christianity is true, then what does it have to fear from rational investigation and critical inquiry?
I don't mean to antagonize anyone here, but I feel compelled to share a painful lesson I've learned: religion is bunk. It's an ancient, pre-scientific worldview that evolved into a powerful method of psychological control used by self-appointed elites to keep the common people in check. That is the ultimate religious truth.
2005-04-16 17:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]
I don't mean to antagonize anyone here, but I feel compelled to share a painful lesson I've learned: religion is bunk. It's an ancient, pre-scientific worldview that evolved into a powerful method of psychological control used by self-appointed elites to keep the common people in check. That is the ultimate religious truth.[/QUOTE]Well put. Of course the smarter regimes of the world will promote whatever brand of religion is currently in vogue in their native lands. The governed are told by their priests, preachers, and pastors to endure their earthly sufferings -- no matter how terrible they may be -- and to render unto Caesar what is his. Don't worry about how'll you'll be treated if you rock the boat in your given country, your reward's to come in the afterlife. Hot damn!!
Personally, I believe religion works to the benefit of both oppressed and oppressor. The oppressor subtly endorses the practice, thereby keeping his people in check, and the oppressed reaps the benefits of "knowing" he's going to live eternally in some magical kingdom where everything is hunky-dory. What more could anyone ask for?
2005-04-16 20:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Would you mind revealing how you came to that conclusion? Especially since you're not supposed to use your reason in "spiritual matters"?
Oh my dearest Angler. You fight so, so hard against belief, my friend.
Man's reason was given by God and with belief comes understanding and true reason put to its fullest use. Reason is a wonderful thing in its proper place, and that is under the authority of God. The problem is when we try to exalt something above God, thereby making it our God. That's when things get out of whack.
Your definition of "sheep" must be very different from the standard metaphor, which generally refers to people who don't think for themselves.
I meant the ability to think, reason or reflect at all.
I'm without God
You definitely tell yourself that, brother. I'd give you a .02 psych-evaluation here, but I don't want to seem patronizing.
and I'm not a sheep. I have no master; I do as I please, think as I please, and live life to the fullest. I'm very happy with my own life, knowing that it won't be wasted.
The original sin - pride. Man's oldest desire is to be his own God.
But when I (rarely) turn on the TV on Sunday morning and see all those people with their hands in the air and tears streaming down their cheeks, "praising God" as Benny Hinn or Robert Tilton "cures" another blind or crippled person, I feel genuine pity for them. They may "have God" as a figment of their imagination, but that's all they have.
I feel the same way for soul-dead atheists and agnostics. It's tragic how they miss out on so much of life.
You mean he's not telling his flock to "pluck out the eyes of their reason"? He's not telling people to assume facts not in evidence?
No. He's simply stating that divine Scripture is higher than reason.
My main question for Luther would be: If Christianity is true, then what does it have to fear from rational investigation and critical inquiry?
His answer would be absolutely none. In fact, knock yourself out. No other book in history has been subject to more rigourous critical investigation and inquiry than the Holy Bible, and each year the case for its divine origin only gets stronger.
It's an ancient, pre-scientific worldview that evolved into a powerful method of psychological control used by self-appointed elites to keep the common people in check. That is the ultimate religious truth.[/QUOTE]
It's the exact opposite, A. Faith in Christ is to have true freedom. But no amount of reason is going to get you there. It comes from above, not from us.
God bless, A.
2005-04-17 00:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Ah, I see. That clears it up! [/QUOTE]
Tex says Luther is THE MAN, so I guess it has to be true.
2005-04-17 06:54 | User Profile
[quote=Tex]Oh my dearest Angler. You fight so, so hard against belief, my friend. It may appear that way, but in fact the opposite is true. Right now, nonbelief comes very easily to me simply because of what I've learned, but it wasn't always that way. When I was a Christian and began to have serious doubts about my religion, I fought hard against those doubts. I wanted to believe. But curiosity led me to question, and questioning eventually led me to answers that I couldn't honestly ignore. I cannot force myself to believe something when I know that all the evidence is against it. I just can't. And why would I want to deceive myself, anyway?
The original sin - pride. Man's oldest desire is to be his own God. I don't think that's correct. I'm sure even you'll admit that man has invented many gods: Osiris, Odin, etc. Why would man do that if he wanted to be his own god? Rather, man wants to live forever, and therefore he'd rather have someone upstairs who can provide that gift.
I feel the same way for soul-dead atheists and agnostics. It's tragic how they miss out on so much of life. I respectfully submit that the exact opposite is true. I was once a believer too, you know. Life on earth is more precious when you figure it's the only one you'll ever have. Also, my conscience is now free of the influence of primitive men who taught that perfectly natural human behaviors were sinful.
Now, I still have a conscience, and I still act pretty much the same way I always did. The difference is that I don't feel guilty anymore when I do harmless things like stare at beautiful women, harbor hatred against certain people (mostly public figures), or illegally carry a gun for protection. I'm my own master. That's not because I don't want God to exist; it's because I see no reason to believe that he does (at least in the sense of a personal God).
No. He's simply stating that divine Scripture is higher than reason. That would be okay, except for one thing: It has never been shown that Scripture is divine! Before I am going to live my life based on a book, I want to see some proof that that book is divine. Based on what I know about the origins of the Bible and a dispassionate consideration of its content, I'm convinced that it cannot be the "Word of God."
His answer would be absolutely none. In fact, knock yourself out. No other book in history has been subject to more rigourous critical investigation and inquiry than the Holy Bible, and each year the case for its divine origin only gets stronger. There is no case for its divine origin at all. The Bible contradicts logic, science, and even itself. Furthermore, even many of the most famous Biblical scholars -- most of them Christian, no less -- admit that certain books of the Bible were not even written by the authors who signed their names to them (I can look up examples if you wish). Now, how am I supposed to trust an author who lies about his name?
Internal inconsistencies in the Bible abound as well. Why, for example, did God not mention either heaven or hell to the Israelites when He was giving them the Law? Wouldn't that have been an appropriate time to do so? Why did those concepts only appear in the Hebrew lexicon much later, when the Hebes just happened to be living among pagans who already believed in those concepts?
Why is the Bible so confusing on the subject of salvation? How do you reconcile what Jesus said -- how you judge others is how you will be judged -- with the claim that we will be judged by belief? And what about "each man was judged according to his conduct" (Revelation)? If the Bible were clear on this, then there wouldn't be over 10,000 different varieties of Christianity. So why didn't God make this important topic clear?
There is also the issue of extrabiblical evidence. There isn't any, apart from a couple of obvious forgeries (e.g., Josephus) and some mention of the early Christians by historians such as Tacitus (no one disputes the existence of the early Church, anyway). But if a man named Jesus had been walking around curing the sick and raising the dead, every single literate person in the Roman Empire would have written about it. If you saw a person raise a dead man to life, wouldn't you write about it for posterity? Similar considerations apply to the tremendous events that supposedly took place after Jesus was crucified. Why is there no mention of those things among the huge number of extant writings from that time period and location?
I could go on, but (1) I don't have time, (2) I don't want to annoy you, and (3) a full consideration of all the evidence against Christianity would take up all the memory on your host server.
It's the exact opposite, A. Faith in Christ is to have true freedom. But no amount of reason is going to get you there. It comes from above, not from us. I see no connection between faith and freedom. Isn't faith, or belief without evidence, just another word for gullibility? And if which people have faith and which don't is determined by God, then anyone who is an unbeliever is just doing God's will.
God bless, A. Thanks. I think I've said enough here, so I will read your response if you have one, but I won't post again on this thread. We can always agree to disagree.
2005-04-17 08:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Tex says Luther is THE MAN, so I guess it has to be true.[/QUOTE]
What does that mean, bill? From my perspective it doesn't appear that anybody here cares too much about these sort of things, much less agrees with my theological views. :nerd:
At the end of the day, Martin Luther was just a man. I would encourage everyone to [url=http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html]read his works[/url], but certainly not in place of the Scriptures themselves, which are of course the normative standard of all belief and practice. I know you dispute the latter point, but that's where I'm coming from. I was not raised Lutheran, but after almost 36 years of living, thinking and studying such things, I can find no better outline of scripturally-based true doctrine than the [url=http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-msynod.html#synod]1932 Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod[/url]. Realizing of course that I'm just an everyday guy and no Princeton scholar, but that is where the good Lord has led me to take my stand until He sees fit to call me home. One thing's for sure, we'll all find out what's right or not on that day. :)
2005-04-17 08:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Thanks. I think I've said enough here, so I will read your response if you have one, but I won't post again on this thread. We can always agree to disagree.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, A. Just like my grandpa out in those Louisiana cotton fields over half a century ago, I'm just trying to plant some seeds. That's all I can do. :thumbsup:
2005-04-18 01:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]What does that mean, bill? From my perspective it doesn't appear that anybody here cares too much about these sort of things, much less agrees with my theological views. [/QUOTE]
Just pulling your chain, Tex.
2005-04-18 10:24 | User Profile
So Texas, you believe then that the Pope is the AntiChrist? :nerd: [url="http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod/web/doct-17.html"]http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod/web/doct-17.html[/url]
2005-04-18 11:38 | User Profile
I believe that the standard interpretation of the Scriptures is that the Pope is [B]an[/B] anti-Christ but not [B]the [/B] anti-Christ.
2005-04-18 11:50 | User Profile
I would like to ask Texas Dissident how he feels about the Missouri Synod offering condolences on the Pope's death? - in light of the Missouri Synod's official position that the Pope is the anti-Christ.
President Comments on Pope's Death
Pope John Paul II's strong voice in confronting issues crucial for our age with courage and conviction for more than a quarter of a century will be missed. He provided inspiration and leadership, not only to Roman Catholics but also to the greater Christian world and beyond with his uncompromising stances in favor of life and against the culture of death.
Though historic differences between our churches remain, Pope John Paul II will also be remembered for his call for Christian churches to seek to work out their differences in faithfulness to their convictions and to their doctrinal heritage.
We join together with all those from around the world who mourn the loss of Pope John Paul II, and we pray that all those who grieve his death may find comfort and peace in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in whose name alone there is life and salvation.
--The Rev. Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick, President The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod
[url]http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=7910[/url]
2005-04-18 15:25 | User Profile
Despite all the intense arguments on God's plan of salvation, you have to believe firstly that the God of the Israelites--- of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the One True God of mankind and the Creator of the universe. What evidence outside of Scripture is there for this? There have been many belief systems thru the ages and many ideas of deity. What makes this certain one from the Middle East more valid than the others? Is it the monotheist doctrine vs polytheism that makes it inherently true? You might say it's the moral qualities of Israelite/Christian theology that matches the moral imperative embedded in the human consciousness, but surely there have been upright, compassionate people of all faiths during all times of history who've never heard of Jehovah and his Son. The natural world has no exclusive imprint of the Israelite God upon it: other creation stories are just as plausible for us who weren't there and didn't witness it. I'm not being flippant, I just wonder why so many are convinced that this belief system is THE one. I don't have an agenda and am trying to be dispassionate about this.
2005-04-18 17:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Keystone]Despite all the intense arguments on God's plan of salvation, you have to believe firstly that the God of the Israelites--- of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the One True God of mankind and the Creator of the universe. What evidence outside of Scripture is there for this? There have been many belief systems thru the ages and many ideas of deity. What makes this certain one from the Middle East more valid than the others? Is it the monotheist doctrine vs polytheism that makes it inherently true? You might say it's the moral qualities of Israelite/Christian theology that matches the moral imperative embedded in the human consciousness, but surely there have been upright, compassionate people of all faiths during all times of history who've never heard of Jehovah and his Son. The natural world has no exclusive imprint of the Israelite God upon it: other creation stories are just as plausible for us who weren't there and didn't witness it. I'm not being flippant, I just wonder why so many are convinced that this belief system is THE one. I don't have an agenda and am trying to be dispassionate about this.[/QUOTE] Good question...Most of the ancients seemed to have believed in some sort of a supreme god of which Yahweh was one. But, we tend to forget that the cult of Yahweh as practiced by the jews had been spread all over the Med for at least 500 years by the time of Christ. It's claimed that during Christ's lifetime there were more than 50 temples of the jew's cult in the City of Rome alone!
Christ comes along and tells the jews they have got it wrong...you know the rest of the story.
2005-04-18 17:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]I would like to ask Tex Dissident how he feels about the Missouri Synod offering condolences on the Pope's death? - in light of the Missouri Synod's official position that the Pope is the anti-Christ.[/QUOTE]
Admittedly, I have some issues with Kieschnick, but I see this as simply a gesture of human decency. As Christians and as a synod, we still have to try and proselytize to Catholics.
2005-04-18 18:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]Good question...Most of the ancients seemed to have believed in some sort of a supreme god of which Yahweh was one. But, we tend to forget that the cult of Yahweh as practiced by the jews had been spread all over the Med for at least 500 years by the time of Christ. It's claimed that during Christ's lifetime there were more than 50 temples of the jew's cult in the City of Rome alone![/QUOTE]The Judahites were actually proselytizing in those days. I've also gathered during that period, the diaspora always out-numbered jews in Judea. [QUOTE]Christ comes along and tells the jews they have got it wrong...you know the rest of the story.[/QUOTE]Well, that's part of the problem for me. Whether Jesus was the Israelite messiah and redeemer believers claim he was seems irrelevant to me, because I'm still not convinced Yahweh is the only universal God, which makes the Savior argument moot from my view.
2005-04-19 00:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SteamshipTime]This strikes me as inconsistent with free will, [/QUOTE]
But, as Hilaire Belloc so rightly points out, it's amazingly compatible with inexorable pagan fate.
I'm beginning to think there's some connection between the Chosen and Elect mentalities as those two were concentrated in the Netherlands once the Jews ejected from Spain ended up there.
I'm more convinced all the time it's precisely this curiously "Nazi-ish" ability to distinguish between Elect/Chosen and Reprobate/Goyim that accounts for the essential inter-tribal bond between NWO brothers.
2005-04-19 00:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Keystone]The Judahites were actually proselytizing in those days. I've also gathered during that period, the diaspora always out-numbered jews in Judea. Well, that's part of the problem for me. Whether Jesus was the Israelite messiah and redeemer believers claim he was seems irrelevant to me, because I'm still not convinced Yahweh is the only universal God, which makes the Savior argument moot from my view.[/QUOTE]For those ancients who believed in a god, or may not even have believed in a god, Jesus Christ made enough of an impression on them as to cause their conversion to Christianity.
I was reading Acts, recently, about Paul in Athens preaching to the pagan philosphers. In Acts those pagan philosphers are named as Stoics and Epicureans by Paul. How many of us today, would identify the ancient Greco-Roman philosophers of the various schools of philosophy as pagans?
2005-04-19 00:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5]But, as Hilaire Belloc so rightly points out, it's amazingly compatible with inexorable pagan fate.
I'm beginning to think there's some connection between the Chosen and Elect mentalities as those two were concentrated in the Netherlands once the Jews ejected from Spain ended up there.
I'm more convinced all the time it's precisely this curiously "Nazi-ish" ability to distinguish between Elect/Chosen and Reprobate/Goyim that accounts for the essential inter-tribal bond between NWO brothers.[/QUOTE] The figure-head of the New World Order George Bush claims he is a Methodist...although I was always told, and read, that the Bush family are Episcopalians...:bag:
2005-04-19 17:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Keystone]I just wonder why so many are convinced that this belief system is THE one.[/QUOTE]
All of the various branches of the historic Christian church throughout history proclaim Christianity's founder, the historical man Jesus of Nazareth, as God.
Christianity alone worships a resurrected saviour who atones for the sins of the world. While Christianity is not a 'religion' per se, for comparative purposes all other religions of the world are based on the meritous works of their respective adherents. Christianity is based on grace and as such is distinctive as it is not any 'religion' man would have come up with himself.