Challenging The More Liberal Christians

[David Sklansky]

Getting back to the pious, benevelant, generous rabbi, who thinks that good Christians are going to heaven in spite of their well meaning "error", (similar to the error that mainstream Christians think Mormons make).

Although I applaud those Christians who admit the possibility that he will go to heaven, I am forced to wonder if they are being unacceptably inconsistent with their supposed faith. More specifically how do they answer these simple words recently sent me?

"God is perfectly pure and holy and can not tolerate sin. How can a god be completely holy and tolerate sin at the same time? So anyone who has sinned even a single time (all of us) is not worth, nor even able, to enter heaven on his own merits."

Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

[BluffTHIS!]

All of us can only be saved through Christ. But so can some sincere non-believers. This again goes back to what I have discussed before about sincere non-believers who follow the minimal moral demands of the natural law. Thus I maintain with the Catholic Church (but not Peter666's catholic sect), contrary to many fundamentalists, that a person can read/hear the gospels and still sincerely not believe. To maintain otherwise is contrary to a theologically proper understanding of free will, and why God doesn't force us to believe. Such a sincere non-believer befefits from the redemption of Christ through baptism of desire, i.e. if he sincerely believed the gospel to be true, he would live in accord with it and thus be saved.

Also, I would like to point out that God gives all men, even those New Guinea types who never in their lifetimes will hear the gospel preached, a minimal chance to be saved. But He may well give more chances to some others, because He can play favorites after first giving everyone the minimum chance.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I would like to point out that God gives all men, even those New Guinea types who never in their lifetimes will hear the gospel preached, a minimal chance to be saved. But He may well give more chances to some others, because He can play favorites after first giving everyone the minimum chance.


[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, it still seems a stacked game! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

PS. I appreciate and respect your views, BluffTHIS. They seem somewhat enlightened in comparison to many others! /images/graemlins/smile.gif As long as you give me a chance! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[David Sklansky]

So what is the specific error made by those who say otherwise?

[SlapPappy]

I think most Christians would agree that we are all sinners. They believe that to get to heaven one must acknowledge that Jesus died for our sins.

I went to a Southern Baptist Church growing up and I am under the impression that they believe that anyone can be saved as long as you are baptized and believe that Jesus died for our sins. The funny thing about this is what about Hitler? What about Stalin? Baptists believe these people can be saved just from a simple act.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I would like to point out that God gives all men, even those New Guinea types who never in their lifetimes will hear the gospel preached, a minimal chance to be saved. But He may well give more chances to some others, because He can play favorites after first giving everyone the minimum chance.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you're speaking for God now?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

"God is perfectly pure and holy and can not tolerate sin. How can a god be completely holy and tolerate sin at the same time?


[/ QUOTE ]

Can't they just agree with Sklanskianity here?

[keith123]

Well, I'd say the first statement means there is no checklist to get to heaven, other than the possible exception of never sinning in any way. Basically God holds the key and there is no way of snatching it away from Him.

The second one could be looked at the same way. But I think Jesus's message was more about a way of life than trying to convince people to believe he was God. So "through me" would more likely mean by living like Jesus, than by believing in Jesus, though I am in no way a scholar.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
So what is the specific error made by those who say otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]


They are making an error of theological interpretation of scripture due to selective out-of-context-from-the-whole literalism, and the lack of an authentic interpreter in their denominations (the pope and the bishops collectively are such for the catholic church). I say selective literalism because they interpret some isolated passages literally, while refusing to do so with others (how can those same fundamentalists justify not having bishops in their churches when same is clearly talked about in the NT for example?).

An individual passage of scripture *might* be properly interpreted literally, but only because such an interpretation is not at variance with other passages of scripture. When there is an *apparent* contradiction between various teachings of Christ, then such have to be reconciled by an authentic teaching authority, which they lack, and evidence of which is the plethora of such denominations with different interpretations of important doctrinal points, based in part on their general insistance of the priesthood of all believers which means that everyone is his own proper interpreter of scripture.

And for any fundamentalist who would deny the above, then one only has to point out his interpretations of scripture at variance with provable science to show that they are off in many areas in their interpretations. As God made the universe, there can be no real contradiction between true doctrine and true science + reason. But they don't understand that.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"God is perfectly pure and holy and can not tolerate sin. How can a god be completely holy and tolerate sin at the same time? So anyone who has sinned even a single time (all of us) is not worth, nor even able, to enter heaven on his own merits."


[/ QUOTE ]
isn't that blasphemy?

chez

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting back to the pious, benevelant, generous rabbi, who thinks that good Christians are going to heaven in spite of their well meaning "error", (similar to the error that mainstream Christians think Mormons make).

Although I applaud those Christians who admit the possibility that he will go to heaven, I am forced to wonder if they are being unacceptably inconsistent with their supposed faith. More specifically how do they answer these simple words recently sent me?

"God is perfectly pure and holy and can not tolerate sin. How can a god be completely holy and tolerate sin at the same time? So anyone who has sinned even a single time (all of us) is not worth, nor even able, to enter heaven on his own merits."

Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to nitpick here, but Christians are making no “errors” according to Judaism.
Judaism requires no one to convert to go to Heaven.
The only people that could possibly have “erred” were the Jews that followed Jesus (many followers were non-jews as well), but their descendants are not Jews, and thus can’t commit any error.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
"God is perfectly pure and holy and can not tolerate sin. How can a god be completely holy and tolerate sin at the same time? So anyone who has sinned even a single time (all of us) is not worth, nor even able, to enter heaven on his own merits."

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to this conundrum, to a liberal Christian, is (a) we don't believe what we believe to earn a spot in heaven, but to become better people and closer to God, and/or (b) there is no personal merit in salvation--only Christ's.

You could debate whether Christ's sacrifice is effective for those who do not believe. If you look at mainstream tradition, you'd think that such a debate could not be had, but you'd be wrong. There is a movement, though small, called "universalism", and it has historical legitimacy, though again small.

I think the picture is ambiguous scripturally. There are phrases in the Gospel and other Christian writings which suggest that separation from God is permanent and eternal if you do not believe. There are others that suggest that Christ's sacrifice was effective in saving <i>all people</i> and that your own actions are irrelevant to this salvation.

Rather, we should believe and be good people not because it will earn us a spot in heaven (such a spot is given freely), but because we should do so out of a love for our Creator--and we should be good to each other out of respect for God's Creation, and because we believe in the worth and dignity of every human being.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to nitpick here, but Christians are making no “errors” according to Judaism.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are Orthodox Jews who say that Christians commit idolatry by belief in the Trinity, following in the teachings of Maimonides. This wouldn't apply to non-Trinitarian Christians, of course.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"God is perfectly pure and holy and can not tolerate sin. How can a god be completely holy and tolerate sin at the same time? So anyone who has sinned even a single time (all of us) is not worth, nor even able, to enter heaven on his own merits."


[/ QUOTE ]
isn't that blasphemy?
chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably should say "will not" rather than "can not." /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[David Sklansky]

What a time to be funny. Because you are exactly the person who is most uncomfortable with this issue and needs to get it down right. Is BluffThis simply rationalizing himself into a politically correct interpretation because it is unpalatable to believe that some of the Doctors' Without Borders are in hell? Or is their merit to his argument.

Also what about my Mormon analagy? Should Mormons consider you about like Christians consider Jews?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Because you are exactly the person who is most uncomfortable with this issue


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not uncomfortable with it at one level - not as illustrated by the quote.

But you answer my question first. I meant it humorously in that I could have just said Deism, but also seriously - it's very important.

[Schmitty 87]

The Bible is a guide to faith, not the be-all-end-all answer to all of life's questions. If the Bible tells you to hate and kill gay people, something is wrong. The same can be said for all of these eschatological theories that don't even come close to being morally satisfactory.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible is a guide to faith, not the be-all-end-all answer to all of life's questions. If the Bible tells you to hate and kill gay people, something is wrong. The same can be said for all of these eschatological theories that don't even come close to being morally satisfactory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Seriously, if thats what the Bible says, why is something wrong? Why can't that be right?

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible is a guide to faith, not the be-all-end-all answer to all of life's questions. If the Bible tells you to hate and kill gay people, something is wrong. The same can be said for all of these eschatological theories that don't even come close to being morally satisfactory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Seriously, if thats what the Bible says, why is something wrong? Why can't that be right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of books say lots of things. The fact that it is the Bible doesn't mean I'm going to throw my brain out the window. If there is a G-d and he is the G-d of that Bible, then I want no part of it anyways. I just prefer to believe that G-d (if in existence) is not an enormous douchebag.

Also, I don't really understand your question. You're asking why there's something wrong with killing gay people when the Bible says to do just that, and that doesn't make much sense to me. Obviously different parts of the Bible would suggest different things, but that's unimportant anyways. I don't need any book to tell me right from wrong, especially in the case of killing. I think the decision to kill/not kill is pretty clear.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible is a guide to faith, not the be-all-end-all answer to all of life's questions. If the Bible tells you to hate and kill gay people, something is wrong. The same can be said for all of these eschatological theories that don't even come close to being morally satisfactory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Seriously, if thats what the Bible says, why is something wrong? Why can't that be right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of books say lots of things. The fact that it is the Bible doesn't mean I'm going to throw my brain out the window. If there is a G-d and he is the G-d of that Bible, then I want no part of it anyways. I just prefer to believe that G-d (if in existence) is not an enormous douchebag.

Also, I don't really understand your question. You're asking why there's something wrong with killing gay people when the Bible says to do just that, and that doesn't make much sense to me. Obviously different parts of the Bible would suggest different things, but that's unimportant anyways. I don't need any book to tell me right from wrong, especially in the case of killing. I think the decision to kill/not kill is pretty clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, once you've said "lots of books say lots of things" you are no longer the person I'm arguing with. And you aren't a Christian, I don't think, but I guess thats up to you.

[David Sklansky]

Please stop evading. Is BluffThis interpretation unquestionably incorrect in your mind?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I would like to point out that God gives all men, even those New Guinea types who never in their lifetimes will hear the gospel preached, a minimal chance to be saved. But He may well give more chances to some others, because He can play favorites after first giving everyone the minimum chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why in the world would an all-loving god play favorites among his own creations? Does he have something against New Guineans?


[ QUOTE ]
Is BluffThis simply rationalizing himself into a politically correct interpretation because it is unpalatable to believe that some of the Doctors' Without Borders are in hell?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, yes. Belief in Christ is an absolute requirement for heaven according to Jesus, the bible, and every priest I've ever met through 12 years of Catholic school. If you think non-Christians can get to heaven through good works alone, you are ignoring the central tenet of the entire faith.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Please stop evading.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's your OP. I'm not the one evading.

[BluffTHIS!]

revots,

Note I said *all* get a minimal chance, which includes New Guineans, even if they never hear the gospel preached in their lifetimes. But as long as all get some minimal chance, then why can't some get more chances? And to show that God does in fact give some less chances, note that He "hardened Pharoah's heart" in Exodus. Thus Pharoah squandered his chance(s) he previously had, and was made unreceptive to further chances at repenting and co-operating with God by taking the words of Moses to heart and letting the captive Jews go free (of course if you want to argue Calvinistically that he *never* had even one chance as he was predestined to hell that is another topic).

And as far as belief in Christ being necessary for salvation, study up on baptism of desire. This has been discussed in past threads here. Also if you believe contrarily, then logically that means the OT prophets and significant figures are screwed doesn't it? I mean tough luck for Abraham, King David, et. al. right?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Please stop evading.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's your OP. I'm not the one evading.

[/ QUOTE ]


NR,

Unless I missed it somewhere, you have continuously evaded answering the New Guinea question in all threads where I have posed it. You have only said you leave it to the mercy of God and refused to give your own theological opinion from your understanding of scripture, despite the fact it is a general question and thus you aren't being asked to make an improper salvational judgement/speculation as to a specific real person.

So here's another chance:

A man in New Guinea dies 1 week after the death of Christ, and thus it is *certain* he never heard the gospel preached, but obviously lived when it was being preached (gets around dealing with OT people and whether they were saved or not). So in your personal opinion did such a hypothetical man have any chance of being saved or not from your understanding/interpretation of scripture? A yes or no answer will suffice. If you want to give a longer explanation then fine, but at least either start such an answer with a yes or no, or admit you are evading.

[bigpooch]

Clearly, there must be at least one rabbi that will go to
heaven! I'll let others elaborate! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
revots,

Note I said *all* get a minimal chance, which includes New Guineans, even if they never hear the gospel preached in their lifetimes. But as long as all get some minimal chance, then why can't some get more chances? And to show that God does in fact give some less chances, note that He "hardened Pharoah's heart" in Exodus. Thus Pharoah squandered his chance(s) he previously had, and was made unreceptive to further chances at repenting and co-operating with God by taking the words of Moses to heart and letting the captive Jews go free (of course if you want to argue Calvinistically that he *never* had even one chance as he was predestined to hell that is another topic).

And as far as belief in Christ being necessary for salvation, study up on baptism of desire. This has been discussed in past threads here. Also if you believe contrarily, then logically that means the OT prophets and significant figures are screwed doesn't it? I mean tough luck for Abraham, King David, et. al. right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know the answer to this, but I'll take a shot. Under what definition of just is giving some a million chances and giving others one shot, and if they screw it up, sorry, eternity in hell. How can that be considered, in ANY way, benevolent or just or loving or any of the other fantastic attributes we give God?

I get how it fits into petty, jealous and arbitrary.

[twonine29]

With God, anything is possible.

Open your mind and allow yourself to see a world(universe, life) created by God.

Now do you really believe God would have to follow a guideline on how to act just to fit his creation's definition of 'perfection'?

God created us, we didn't create God. He can do what He wants, not what we think He should want.

We should pray for mercy, b/c we are at God's mercy.

(We have free will (I believe), but we only have free will becaue God allows it to be, praise be to God.)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
With God, anything is possible.

Open your mind and allow yourself to see a world(universe, life) created by God.

Now do you really believe God would have to follow a guideline on how to act just to fit his creation's definition of 'perfection'?

God created us, we didn't create God. He can do what He wants, not what we think He should want.

We should pray for mercy, b/c we are at God's mercy.

(We have free will (I believe), but we only have free will becaue God allows it to be, praise be to God.)

[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the argument always unveiled whenever what God seems to be doing is completely contrary to what we consider good and right. And yet whenever God appears to be doing things that some DO consider right we never hear this argument, only "Obviously God is doing this, because God is Good." Either you know what God's gonna do or you don't, you don't get to ride the fence.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
And as far as belief in Christ being necessary for salvation, study up on baptism of desire. This has been discussed in past threads here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Baptism of desire refers (as I understand it from my Catholic upbringing anyway), to those who accept and believe in the Christian god but die before receiving the formal sacrament of baptism. Or, to non-Christians who "seek god with a sincere heart" and try to do his will (they are "implicitly" baptised).

But this does not apply either to athiests who actively deny god, nor to agnostics who won't accept god without any evidence.

So even if you believe the "baptism of desire" concept is legit (and it sounds to me like it's just an attempt by church leaders to rationalize away the concerns of Christians, who think sending any non-Christian to hell regardless of how they lived is barbaric), it certainly does not mean that good works can get you into heaven. There are certainly many doctors without borders who are burning in hell right now, while there are serial killers who converted while on death row enjoying eternal bliss in heaven.

So I don't see how living a good life can have any bearing on whether you get into heaven or not. It's much better to be a complete bastard born into a Christian family, than a good person born to athiest parents. The Christian child is likely to be indoctrinated into believing in god while the athiest child is much more likely to grow up to be a non-believing adult. So the quality of their life can't really help/hurt their chances.

[Peter666]

"Thus I maintain with the Catholic Church (but not Peter666's catholic sect), contrary to many fundamentalists"

I think you have confused the SSPX with the Feenyites.

[BluffTHIS!]

Peter,

Although I have seen you discuss baptism of desire, I have also read other statments that seemed like you took a stricter interpretation of same. I realize you aren't a Feenyite.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Unless I missed it somewhere, you have continuously evaded answering the New Guinea question


[/ QUOTE ]

It's interesting to me that you join DS in accusing me of evading when it's obvious he's the one evading. The issue raised by his OP is almost infinitely more important than the New Guinea red herring.

But I will address that question. I say I don't know because I don't know. If you ask me if God created other creatures on other planets in the universe I will say I don't know. Because I don't know. If you ask me how old is the earth I will say I don't know. Because I don't know. If you ask me if God saves anyone who hasn't heard the Gospel since the Incarnation (the issue regarding OT is different) I will say I don't know. Because I don't know. If that's how you define evading then I'm evading.

I've explained before what I think the Bible says about it, which isn't much, one way or the other. Since it isn't stated in the Bible, and since the decision is with God, and since God is just, I'm willing to leave it to Him. Because I don't know.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
So even if you believe the "baptism of desire" concept is legit (and it sounds to me like it's just an attempt by church leaders to rationalize away the concerns of Christians, who think sending any non-Christian to hell regardless of how they lived is barbaric)

[/ QUOTE ]


revots,

Believing in Christ and preaching and living the gospel always means enduring the censure of non-believers as well as some positively hostile to Christ in specific, so that comes with the territory.

Since you don't state you are a practicing catholic, I assume you are a former one who later became a member of a fundamentalist protestant denomination, or just a member of the latter whose parents sent him to catholic school.


And as always, the primary authoritative text for presenting catholic doctrine is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (or CCC), though every teaching in it is not necessarily held with the same degree of certainty, i.e. infallibly true. Here (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#VI) is the relevant passage on the topic of baptism of desire:

1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).


That is the summary point and the one I normally quote. Lest I be accused of sugar-coating as you have so accused, I will give a stronger statement earlier in that same chapter of the CCC:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.


That would not be as liberal an interpretation as I have been putting forth, and gives a "harder" teaching in line with the literal reading of Mark 16:15-16, which is a source for that teaching.

But let's distinguish 2 cases of non-baptized men:

1) Have had the Gospel "proclaimed" to them.

2) Haven't had the Gospel "proclaimed" to them.


Those who fall in the 2nd category (i.e. the New Guinea man), *clearly* have the *possibility* of being saved. That is, if they live a moral life in accord with the more minimal demands of the natural law and are repentant for any failings to live in accord with that law, then they can well be saved.

The first category though is tougher. Again a literal reading, means that those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and reject it will be condemened (although they might get another chance(s) prior to death to reconsider). But what consitutes having the Gospel "proclaimed" to someone? Just sitting through a 5 minute Billy Graham or Father Ed sermon and an invitation to be baptized? (And for you fundamentalists, what of someone who makes the altar call and accepts Christ in his heart but dies in a car crash on the way home before he can be baptized next Sunday?)

I would maintain, though the CCC doesn't define this explicitly, that such a short exposure to a smaller incomplete part of the whole Gospel is not sufficient to mean that not accepting right then is a definitive rejection of the Gospel, as the Gospel hasn't been proclaimed to him in its entirety. And what is most important is a willingness to hear and consider, whether now or in the future. However such a small incomplete exposure can well be just the start of the prompting of grace in that man's soul that leads him to hear more of the Gospel and eventually accept Christ.

But someone who says something on the order of "there is no way I will ever believe in a god or Christ no matter what I see or read or hear", has most likely hardened his own heart and can never be saved *if* he persists in such an attitude to death.

Finally let me say, as I have before, lest I or the Church be seen as more "liberal" in this than is the case, that I believe that the number of those who will have lived and died by the return of Christ and will be saved saved, will be a relatively small percentage of the total of such humanity throughout its existence on earth, and that not all professed believers in Christ will be saved either (we catholics don't believe the Calvinistic doctrine "once saved always saved").

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Unless I missed it somewhere, you have continuously evaded answering the New Guinea question


[/ QUOTE ]

It's interesting to me that you join DS in accusing me of evading when it's obvious he's the one evading. The issue raised by his OP is almost infinitely more important than the New Guinea red herring.

But I will address that question. I say I don't know because I don't know. If you ask me if God created other creatures on other planets in the universe I will say I don't know. Because I don't know. If you ask me how old is the earth I will say I don't know. Because I don't know. If you ask me if God saves anyone who hasn't heard the Gospel since the Incarnation (the issue regarding OT is different) I will say I don't know. Because I don't know. If that's how you define evading then I'm evading.

I've explained before what I think the Bible says about it, which isn't much, one way or the other. Since it isn't stated in the Bible, and since the decision is with God, and since God is just, I'm willing to leave it to Him. Because I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]


NR,

I will accept that anwer that you don't know, although I would still be interested in what your speculative opinion is. But as far as the Bible not saying, then just read Mark 16:15-16 which I alluded to above. However the real difference between us is in my post previous to this one, and whether someone who hears the Gospel preached just once and doesn't immediatley accept it, can do so sincerely or not, and from your past postings I don't believe you think someone can hear the gospel and sincerely believe it not to be true.

Regarding David's OP, you are right it is more important, but he really doesn't understand what you are getting at I think, and has in fact mixed two different things there. I have only been addressing the question of whether non-believers can be saved, but he mixed that with the question of whether *anyone* who has sinned (all of us except the Virgin Mary) could be saved. That latter topic is indeed the more important one, i.e. the question of humanity's redemption through the sacrifice and blood of Christ.

[twonine29]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With God, anything is possible.

Open your mind and allow yourself to see a world(universe, life) created by God.

Now do you really believe God would have to follow a guideline on how to act just to fit his creation's definition of 'perfection'?

God created us, we didn't create God. He can do what He wants, not what we think He should want.

We should pray for mercy, b/c we are at God's mercy.

(We have free will (I believe), but we only have free will becaue God allows it to be, praise be to God.)

[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the argument always unveiled whenever what God seems to be doing is completely contrary to what we consider good and right. And yet whenever God appears to be doing things that some DO consider right we never hear this argument, only "Obviously God is doing this, because God is Good." Either you know what God's gonna do or you don't, you don't get to ride the fence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe God is good, I sincerely hope and pray for God's mercy, and that Jesus Christ will save my soul when the time comes.

I fear God as well though, for with all that power, His Will shall be done, whatever His Will shall be. I hope that He wouldn't send anyone to Hell, that He could find a different solution, where no one had to suffer. My mind doesn't like the concept at all, but if it's true, than it is what it is. We could've all been born into a world where we were hunted by grotesque creatures who ripped us apart limb by limb to increase the suffering. If we understood the concept of "fair" in that world, we would definitly believe life was not "fair". However, it would be what it would be.

[twonine29]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Unless I missed it somewhere, you have continuously evaded answering the New Guinea question


[/ QUOTE ]

It's interesting to me that you join DS in accusing me of evading when it's obvious he's the one evading. The issue raised by his OP is almost infinitely more important than the New Guinea red herring.

But I will address that question. I say I don't know because I don't know. If you ask me if God created other creatures on other planets in the universe I will say I don't know. Because I don't know. If you ask me how old is the earth I will say I don't know. Because I don't know. If you ask me if God saves anyone who hasn't heard the Gospel since the Incarnation (the issue regarding OT is different) I will say I don't know. Because I don't know. If that's how you define evading then I'm evading.

I've explained before what I think the Bible says about it, which isn't much, one way or the other. Since it isn't stated in the Bible, and since the decision is with God, and since God is just, I'm willing to leave it to Him. Because I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

This answer is the truth.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting back to the pious, benevelant, generous rabbi, who thinks that good Christians are going to heaven in spite of their well meaning "error", (similar to the error that mainstream Christians think Mormons make).

Although I applaud those Christians who admit the possibility that he will go to heaven, I am forced to wonder if they are being unacceptably inconsistent with their supposed faith. More specifically how do they answer these simple words recently sent me?

"God is perfectly pure and holy and can not tolerate sin. How can a god be completely holy and tolerate sin at the same time? So anyone who has sinned even a single time (all of us) is not worth, nor even able, to enter heaven on his own merits."

Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

[/ QUOTE ]

The book of Isaiah is sacred to both Jews and Christians.

Here's a nice little monkey wrench:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]." Isaiah 45:7

(http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa045.html#7)

If this verse is accepted as part of the definition of the Judeo-Christian God then we've got some issues to examine in the context of what this type of God will or will not do.

Ray

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I would still be interested in what your speculative opinion is.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mark 16:
15And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Clearly Jesus is talking about those who have had the Gospel preached to them. He says nothing about someone who hears the Gospel and has no reaction - they either believe or disbelieve. Is there a third position? Perhaps for someone who doesn't really comprehend the message. I'm sure I heard the Gospel many times before I was converted, but I have no memory of understanding the message prior to then. I doubt if you had asked me to state the Gospel I could have done so. In one ear and out the other. I wasn't an unbeliever - maybe nonbeliever would be accurate. Surely disbelief requires some level of comprehension. But I see no wiggle room for someone who understands the message and disbelieves. That doesn't mean they might not repent later. I'm sure that's the norm, most people don't respond the first time they've understood the message. But having understood, rejected, and then died without repenting seems to leave no hope. If someone "sincerely" disbelieves because the Gospel seems foolish, but if they are truly "sincere" about the truth, then God promises that they will "know the truth".

For those who have never heard see

Romans 1:
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

The phrase "without excuse" is the Greek anapologia, without an apology or defense. Paul is referring to mankind in general. Perhaps some respond positively to God's revelation of Himself. It's logical to believe that God would count this as faith sufficient for salvation. I can't say for sure, one way or the other, but I believe it's possible.

I don't remember the verses but there are a couple places in the NT where we are basically told to not worry about other people in this regard. It isn't our concern what has happened to people about whom we can do nothing. Our concern is our own status with God and doing His will, which includes promoting the Gospel. If you know of someone who hasn't heard and wonder whether he can be saved without the Gospel, you should make it possible for him to hear. If you can't then you trust that God will do the right thing in his case. I thank God no one's salvation depends on me.

[David Sklansky]

What I am evading? Anyway RJT, in my thread about "Translating Bluff's Position" quotes a passage purportedly explaining the Catholic position that non believers can be saved. Matthew something, I think. So why are you so sure his interpretation is wrong?

Also why are you so sure that God makes no distinction between a hard core atheist who claims that God is evil even if he exists, and the pious Jew who believes in the Old Testament, and thinks good Christians will be saved in spite of being taken in by an innacurate story in a similar way you think Mormons have been taken in. Your certainty seems weird given that the majority of Christians, who you believe WILL be saved, disagree with you. In other words if disagreeing with you on this point does not doom them, why are you so adament on this point, if there is no downside to admitting you might be wrong?

PS Thanks for calling my OP "infinitely more important". That was the closest to a compliment you ever threw me.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What I am evading?


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:

"God is perfectly pure and holy and can not tolerate sin. How can a god be completely holy and tolerate sin at the same time?




Can't they just agree with Sklanskianity here?


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

So why are you so sure his interpretation is wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

I assume he cited the text to establish some method of obtaining salvation by works. A brief survey of web sites on this will show why that's a faulty interpretation. If the context is understood and combined with other similar passages dealing with works, such as James, along with those many dealing with the method of salvation given by Jesus and then by the other New Testament authors, the parable becomes clear.

[ QUOTE ]

Also why are you so sure that God makes no distinction between a hard core atheist who claims that God is evil even if he exists, and the pious Jew who believes in the Old Testament


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certain God does make a distinction. If every pious Jew who didn't accept Christ is saved, it wouldn't surprise me. But I would tell any one who is a pious Jew that he's taking a major risk if he doesn't accept Christ because I don't see any evidence from Scripture that he has any reason to hope.

Comparing Christianity to Mormonism reveals little understanding of either religion. Just at the surface level Jews should understand that Christ claimed to be fulfilling OT prophecies of the Messiah which I'm sure pious Jews take seriously, and Christ had many, many witnesses of all that He did and said. Smith was little more than a con man, and obviously so.

[ QUOTE ]

PS Thanks for calling my OP "infinitely more important". That was the closest to a compliment you ever threw me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Accidents will happen./images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[David Sklansky]

"I'm certain God does make a distinction. If every pious Jew who didn't accept Christ is saved, it wouldn't surprise me. But I would tell any one who is a pious Jew that he's taking a major risk if he doesn't accept Christ because I don't see any evidence from Scripture that he has any reason to hope."

Well that second sentence is a shocker. But it contradicts your last clause.

But if God making a distinction doesn't translate into a chance for being saved, then in what other way is that distinction demonstrated.

As to the pious Jew who you would warn is taking a major risk, surely you see that it would have no effect. Not because he wants to defy you and take that risk. But because he does not think he is taking a risk. In his mind if anybody is,it is you.


"Smith was little more than a con man, and obviously so."

Nevada's senator disagrees. Is he evil, stupid, crazy, what?

Meanwhile you didn't answer one question. I'll repeat. Apparently most Christians believe non believers can be saved. You don't believe that their belief stops THEM from being saved. Therefore you don't think that their belief about non believers is a serious sin. Therefore you believe that their belief about non believers is due not to a lack of piousness but rather an inability in reading comprehension or something along those lines. But you don't claim world class talent in reading comprehension. So why be adamently positive that you have it right rather than them?

PS How bout another compliment? If nothing else, you've got to admit that I force you to clean out any cobwebs in your brain. In fact you should probably transfer some of our conversations to some of those Christian websites you frequent. Help us get rich and famous. Invited on Oprah. That sort of thing.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But it contradicts your last clause.


[/ QUOTE ]

The difficulty stems from a desire not to define who is and isn't saved. I believe the Bible says that only those who trust in Christ are saved. And that is what I would tell anyone. To ignore Christ and reject Him is contrary to the Word of God. So an issue arises as to whether a Jew can be truly pious if he rejects Christ. The same applies to all who have heard, from atheist to Muslim to Mormon. But I refuse to limit God. If there is a way to save people who have not acknowledged Christ, it wouldn't surprise me in one sense. But I see no way that can be possible from Scripture. The Bible tells how someone is saved. I can't depart from that, but I don't pretend my own ability to interpret Scripture is definitive. And I believe we went through this on another issue. You thought I was copping out. But I'm not. I'm telling you you must believe in Christ. But if you ask me then I also tell you salvation is from God, not my interpretation. If you want to risk it, at least I told you.

[ QUOTE ]

Nevada's senator disagrees. Is he evil, stupid, crazy, what?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know him. Perhaps he would like to sign up for 2+2 and we can debate the issue.

[ QUOTE ]

So why be adamently positive that you have it right rather than them?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I just demonstrated how adamantly positive I am.

[ QUOTE ]

Help us get rich and famous.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you already? And I'm not looking for an earthly city.

And you still haven't answered my question.

[David Sklansky]

OK I finally get your position. It is basically, "the words seem obvious to me. I can't understand why some Christians interpret them differently. My guess is because they have a psychological need to. But I admit that I can't say that with complete certainty."

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
"God is perfectly pure and holy and can not tolerate sin. How can a god be completely holy and tolerate sin at the same time? So anyone who has sinned even a single time (all of us) is not worth, nor even able, to enter heaven on his own merits."

[/ QUOTE ]
This sort of comment always strikes me as silly - especially if the quotee also believes something like the "doctrine of the trinity" (whatever that means). If something can be one thing and three things at the same time - why cant it be "completely holy and tolerate sin"?

In my opinion, if you ever adopt the "God is unknowable" line - you cant later say "obviously god has the following property..."

I defend a benevolent god, so I believe he's going to be nice to all people, irrespective of their beliefs. I dont worship the bible (I think that's idolatry anyhow, not sure how fundamentalists get around that) and I dont believe it is inerrant. I'm probably so liberal I'm not christian in american terms, but as a theist there is no problem to answer.

[David Sklansky]

"If something can be one thing and three things at the same time - why cant it be "completely holy and tolerate sin"?"

Forget the one and three idea. The point is ridiculous regardless. If a completely holy entity is willing to forgive multiudes of sins if someone believes, then it certainly can forgive far fewer and much smaller sins because it wants to reward relative goodness.