A Serious Question For Protestants Only

[David Sklansky]

There's this elderly professor of chemistry at Boston University. A wonderful chap who goes out of his way to do what he, and most people, think is right, and is quick to help his fellow man. His knowledge of science does nothing to lessen his fervent belief in God. On the contrary it just puts him more in awe of something that could do such wondrous deeds.

He is sure that God created the Universe. He is sure that God infuses souls into humans. He is sure that God loves us. He believes that no man actually deserves an afterlife with God because of his sinful nature but he thinks that God is merciful and will at least sometimes allow those who believe in him, love him and do good works to enter his kingdom. He hopes he gets lucky but doesn't expect it.

He believes in the values and morals of Christianity. He thinks the teachings of Jesus are spot on and everyone should adhere to them.

But Jesus himself he puts in the category of Moses. Not for any philosophical reason. He doesn't feel there are any bad repercussions if Jesus was the son of God. He doesn't passionately disbelieve in the resurrection. He just thinks it didn't happen. Based on his knowledge of science, history or whatever. Exactly why isn't important except to say again that it isn't some deeply held conviction that he feels is important to have. It is simply because his thoughts tell him that the divinity of Jesus, and the parts of the bible that proclaim it are, for some reason, in error.

Again though, he agrees with Christian moral teachings, follows them, loves God, and basically feels about God almost exactly the same way that Christians feel about the God-Jesus combination. Except that he is pretty sure that Jesus was merely a great teacher.

This guy has no chance of escaping hell if he can't change his thoughts?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
This guy has no chance of escaping hell if he can't change his thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly.

[diebitter]

Okay, he believes in God, right. Jesus is God, according to orthodox protestant teaching.

So of course he won't go to hell.

Do you see why?

[godBoy]

I don't think this person would go to hell.
Jesus said the greatest command was to love God.
He also said if you love me you will obey my commands.
I think if you love God you belong to Him.

[pkrNinja]

[ QUOTE ]
There's this elderly professor of chemistry at Boston University. A wonderful chap who goes out of his way to do what he, and most people, think is right, and is quick to help his fellow man. His knowledge of science does nothing to lessen his fervent belief in God. On the contrary it just puts him more in awe of something that could do such wondrous deeds.

He is sure that God created the Universe. He is sure that God infuses souls into humans. He is sure that God loves us. He believes that no man actually deserves an afterlife with God because of his sinful nature but he thinks that God is merciful and will at least sometimes allow those who believe in him, love him and do good works to enter his kingdom. He hopes he gets lucky but doesn't expect it.

He believes in the values and morals of Christianity. He thinks the teachings of Jesus are spot on and everyone should adhere to them.

But Jesus himself he puts in the category of Moses. Not for any philosophical reason. He doesn't feel there are any bad repercussions if Jesus was the son of God. He doesn't passionately disbelieve in the resurrection. He just thinks it didn't happen. Based on his knowledge of science, history or whatever. Exactly why isn't important except to say again that it isn't some deeply held conviction that he feels is important to have. It is simply because his thoughts tell him that the divinity of Jesus, and the parts of the bible that proclaim it are, for some reason, in error.

Again though, he agrees with Christian moral teachings, follows them, loves God, and basically feels about God almost exactly the same way that Christians feel about the God-Jesus combination. Except that he is pretty sure that Jesus was merely a great teacher.

This guy has no chance of escaping hell if he can't change his thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]



Paul the apostle said that if Jesus has not risen from the dead, then our faith is worthless and we are still dead in our sins. If Jesus has not been raised from the dead, then the Christian has no hope at all, and thus Christianity fails altogether.

And furthermore, if one denies the ressurection of Jesus, he denies a great portion of the New Testament which speaks about the ressurection. At which point is a person qualified to determine which parts of Gods word are real and which are not??

And to equate Jesus with Moses is a grave error. I would hope I can state this without an elaborate explanation, but if need be, we can delve further into this as well.

[Phil153]

Welcome back David. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

I'm not going to answer since this is a question that doesn't apply to me as a catholic, but I would like to point out there is a better example than the one you use in a member of the protestant clergy, namely Bishop Shelby Spong, the retired Episcopal bishop of Newark.

[IronUnkind]

How about someone sane, like Marcus Borg?

[KipBond]

He goes to hell:

John 3:
16| "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17| For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18| Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Acts 4
10| It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11| He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.' 12| Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Romans 10
9| That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

[siegfriedandroy]

isnt spong an atheist?

[siegfriedandroy]

isnt borg an atheist?

**ive read a little of both the above names. spong definitely seems completely naturalistic in his thinking, allowing no room for 'God', except in some sort of strange, existential way. borg believes not in a physical resurrection, but instead in a 'spiritual' one. what this means to him i dont really know? it is tough for me to pinpoint the specific believes of most of these 'jesus seminar' type 'christians'. most seem completely atheistic to me, though they use strange spiritual language (i.e. Christ rose in our hearts and minds) and then try to pass them off as Christians. I used to be interested in this stuff a few years back (Crossan, Funk, etc). I became frustrated with them- they seem very foofy and either unable (or unwilling) to express their specific philosophical/theological beliefs. If you are truly an atheist, I dont see why you would espouse such Christian dribble in the manner they do. Seems ridiculous to me.

[siegfriedandroy]

what about the above verses that Bond cited?

[siegfriedandroy]

Most Christians would say you have to believe in the right 'God'. If I believe a rock is 'God', most Christians (I hope) would not say that this person is a believer.

[David Sklansky]

"I'm not going to answer since this is a question that doesn't apply to me as a catholic,"

I made the question for Protestants only, since I am under the impression that Catholic doctrine (although I am not sure about Peter 666's version) plainly states that this fellow has a chance at heaven. As long as you are on this thread do you mind stating that for the record?

[BluffTHIS!]

Of course I think he could be saved since his religious opinions, even though wrong, seem to be sincere, and since it is stated that he lives according to christian moral principles as well. But his doctrinal beliefs no longer allow him to be called a christian. He has become something of a Unitarian. And Peter would say he is going to be burnt toast.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
And to equate Jesus with Moses is a grave error. I would hope I can state this without an elaborate explanation, but if need be, we can delve further into this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

an error if he is a "christian" thinker? or an error in respect that they simply cannot be compared in that way?

because that is exactly how muslims view jesus; a great prophet in the way that moses is a great prophet.

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
This guy has no chance of escaping hell if he can't change his thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, you need to limit your question even further, to Protestants who believe in hell. And then you're still going to get a couple dozen contradictory answers.

[Silent A]

Either:

[ QUOTE ]
He goes to hell:

John 3:
16| "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17| For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18| Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Acts 4
10| It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11| He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.' 12| Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Romans 10
9| That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, he goes to heaven:

Mt.12:37
"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

Mt.16:27
"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works."

Mt.19:17
"If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Jn.5:29
"And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

Rom.2:6, 13
"Who 'will render to each one according to his deeds'. For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified."

2 Cor.5:10
"For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad."

2 Cor.11:15
"Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works."

Bible quotes settle nothing on this one.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Bible quotes settle nothing on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=192) They rarely do. One of the biggest disagreements amongst Christian denominations, is exactly how someone is "saved". That's kinda important, I'd think.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Mt.19:17
"If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm only going to deal with one of these because the answers to all are the same and easily discoverable by anyone sincerely seeking the truth.

You took this verse out of context. The context is as follows:

16And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?"

17And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Verse 17 is perfectly consistent. He was asked how to earn salvation. He answered. Other verses clearly indicate sinful man can't earn salvation.

Proverbs says to answer a fool according to his folly.

[Lestat]

Real quick hijack then I'm done -

<font color="blue"> Of course I think he could be saved since his religious opinions, even though wrong, seem to be sincere, and since it is stated that he lives according to christian moral principles as well. </font>


Then why couldn't an atheist who coincidently lives according to christian moral principles get into heaven?

Most good people would agree with christian moral principles even while getting the religion itself wrong. I guess what I'm saying is why should it make a difference if you get it 95% right, or 5% right as long as you're doing the right things by the way you live?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Then why couldn't an atheist who coincidently lives according to christian moral principles get into heaven?


[/ QUOTE ]

Several reasons, one of which is no one is saved by works.

[dynamite]

It isn't possible for Jesus to just be a great guy, or a great teacher. He claimed he was the son of god, here to rescue the world from their sins. Therefore, there are only three possible options:

A) He believed he was the son of god but was not. In this case he was a lunatic.

B) He knew he was not the son of god, but purposely tried to decieve people. In this case he was a liar and a bad person.

C) He was the son of god. In this case he died for your sins.

Because of the claims he made, there is no way he could simply be a good teacher. Either he's crazy, a liar, or the son of god.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Verse 17 is perfectly consistent. He was asked how to earn salvation. He answered. Other verses clearly indicate sinful man can't earn salvation.

[/ QUOTE ]
More accurately it says "all you need to attain salvation is follow the commandments". According to the next few verses, all one needs to be granted salvation are to not murder, steal, commit adultery, and lie; and love your neighbour and honour your mother and father. If you add giving away all your possesions to the poor and follow him you become "perfect".

So you need to follow him (what this means is at least somewhat open ended) plus forgo all your possesuons for perfection, but not for salvation.

Ergo, this quote supports the professor going to heaven. In fact, it supports most atheists going to heaven.

[ QUOTE ]
Proverbs says to answer a fool according to his folly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this directed at me, you, or the "someone"

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Because of the claims he made, there is no way he could simply be a good teacher. Either he's crazy, a liar, or the son of god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correction: because of the claims others have said to have heard from others who claimed to have heard that he had made (ouch). Jesus and his contemporary followers left no record. So there's another option: some of the more grandiose things acreditted to him were never said/happened.

IOW, fallible peple may have made mistakes. It may surprise you to know that human error is actually quite common.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

In fact, it supports most atheists going to heaven.


[/ QUOTE ]

It does when taken about of context. Just after this the following occurs:

23And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
25When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?"
26And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."


People have complained that you can make the Bible say whatever you want. This is true. But that doesn't mean what you make it say is true.

[ QUOTE ]
Is this directed at me, you, or the "someone"


[/ QUOTE ]


The someone. The rich young man. Jesus responds in this way to many of the insincere questioners in the Gospels. The rich young man was obviously trying to establish his own righeousness. Jesus is basically saying, OK, you want to be saved by works, do this.

[Lestat]

Great point! In fact, this "another" option is at LEAST as likely as the other three. I'd consider it a favorite.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
It does when taken about of context. Just after this the following occurs:

23And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
25When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?"
26And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I think if your version of the context is correct, Jesus is being more than a little coy here (not very godly IMHO). First he says to follow the commandments if you want salvation. He's prepared to leave it at that. Only after further pressing from the rich young man does he mention which ones (notably - not all of them!). Jesus is again ready to leave it there. Only when the man pushes for more does Jesus bring up what is needed for "perfection". It is far from clear that prefection is required for salvation. If that is the "correct context" for these verses then why did Jesus give such a dangerously incomplete answer to the man twice?

I still think my interpretation works just fine: good works are sufficient for salvation (at least potentially). Perfection is only needed to guarentee it. In fact, if we follow your interpretation one needs to do ALL of the following:

- follow the commandments
- give away all their earthly possesions
- leave their families (including children!) for Jesus' sake

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

good works are sufficient for salvation


[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck with that.

[ QUOTE ]

if we follow your interpretation one needs to do ALL of the following:


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't even given you my full interpretation of what the Bible says re salvation.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

good works are sufficient for salvation


[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck with that.


[/ QUOTE ]
Why, dare I ask, does this seem so unreasonable? We're talking about a supposedly all-good and all-powerful god. Why would such a being require a go-between for salvation? Why does the go-between need to be sacrificed? Why do we need to believe in this sacrifice? Why did he choose to leave such murky third hand account of what is required?

The whole thing makes no sense and yet everything supposedly hinges on my believing it anyway.

If a god exists and he's just, as an ok (dare I say somewhat more moral than average) person I'm confident I'll do ok come my day of judgement. No luck required.

If he exists and isn't just, good luck to you too. We'll both need it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why would such a being require a go-between for salvation?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Because all are guilty and no one can expiate his own sin, and because all are sinful and no one can keep the law, God sent His Son to keep the law and be the sacrifice to expiate our sins. Therefore salvation is by grace, because no one can earn or deserve God's favor.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why would such a being require a go-between for salvation?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Because all are guilty and no one can expiate his own sin, and because all are sinful and no one can keep the law, God sent His Son to keep the law and be the sacrifice to expiate our sins. Therefore salvation is by grace, because no one can earn or deserve God's favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if anything you said above is true, nowhere does this imply that deeds and merit alone can't bring salvation. In fact...

How righteous is he who lives true to the word of God, yet does not believe? Why couldn't he be judged much better than someone who believes in God, yet sins just the same?

[LadyWrestler]

"He believes that no man actually deserves an afterlife with God because of his sinful nature but he thinks that God is merciful and will at least sometimes allow those who believe in him, love him and do good works to enter his kingdom."

Hi. I believe he believes in Jesus without complete understanding of Him. He prefers to simply call Him God. I do not know why he has problems with the Jesus of the bible, but...based on what you have said...I believe he has been saved from hell.

Being human, I could be wrong. God can look at his heart; I cannot. I can say this much with certainty...if he is not saved, God will call him when he is ready...and may even put him in contact with someone who can help him take the needed step.

Have a great day!

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Because all are guilty and no one can expiate his own sin, and because all are sinful and no one can keep the law,

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of an intelligent design, right?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How righteous is he who lives true to the word of God, yet does not believe?


[/ QUOTE ]

No one does. The first commandment (Jesus in one place refers to this as the only commandment, meaning all others are included in it) is to love God. How can someone love God and not believe?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Sort of an intelligent design, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of a gracious and loving design.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Sort of an intelligent design, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of a gracious and loving design.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very gracious and loving indeed. To start, everyone is handicapped. LOL

[BluffTHIS!]

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, [b]work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
-Phil 1:2

For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.
-Jas 2:2
(means there is a faith without works that is not efficaceous for salvation)


[catholic intervention over]

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

To start, everyone is handicapped. LOL


[/ QUOTE ]

Self-handicapped. Then you refuse the remedy. Not much to laugh about.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

[catholic intervention over]


[/ QUOTE ]

Promise?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Because

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Because all are guilty and no one can expiate his own sin, and because all are sinful and no one can keep the law, God sent His Son to keep the law and be the sacrifice to expiate our sins. Therefore salvation is by grace, because no one can earn or deserve God's favor.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sigh. I expected I'd get this kind of a reply.

This doesn't explain anything. The questions I asked need to be answered simulatneously for the whole thing to make sense.

How can Jesus do something God can't? How exactly does the sacrifice "expiate our sins"? Why, exactly, is faith in Jesus so important?

Perhaps God also created a go-between for us atheists. One between us and Jesus. One we don't need to believe in (thus no proof of his existence will ever appear) but through his "sacrifice" we can attain what is impossible for us on our own : the grace of Jesus so that he may give us the grace of God.

OK, now it's settled. All atheists are saved. Thank you What's-his-name.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How can Jesus do something God can't?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you mean by this.

[ QUOTE ]

How exactly does the sacrifice "expiate our sins"?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know "exactly" but that God requires sacrifice - because the guilt of sin cannot just be overlooked, because He is perfectly just and righeous.

[ QUOTE ]

Why, exactly, is faith in Jesus so important?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is how God has decided to apply the effect of the atonement. Perhaps He chose this because it requires the human heart, the whole being, and therefore it involves the complete abandonment of one's claim to any form of goodness in his own right, but the total acceptance of his own guilt and the complete provision by God, so that it is by grace and not works. Faith is non-meritorious, it can't be confused with a work done in righteousness.

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps God also created a go-between for us atheists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." Your speculation could only be true if Jesus was lying.

[ QUOTE ]

All atheists are saved


[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck with that.

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How can Jesus do something God can't?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you mean by this.

[ QUOTE ]

How exactly does the sacrifice "expiate our sins"?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know "exactly" but that God requires sacrifice - because the guilt of sin cannot just be overlooked, because He is perfectly just and righeous.

[ QUOTE ]

Why, exactly, is faith in Jesus so important?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is how God has decided to apply the effect of the atonement. Perhaps He chose this because it requires the human heart, the whole being, and therefore it involves the complete abandonment of one's claim to any form of goodness in his own right, but the total acceptance of his own guilt and the complete provision by God, so that it is by grace and not works. Faith is non-meritorious, it can't be confused with a work done in righteousness.

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps God also created a go-between for us atheists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." Your speculation could only be true if Jesus was lying.

[ QUOTE ]

All atheists are saved


[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

right·eous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rchs)
adj.
Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous parishioner.
In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment.
Morally justifiable: righteous anger. See Synonyms at moral.

how can a god that lets people be righteous?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

how can a god that lets people be righteous?


[/ QUOTE ]

?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How righteous is he who lives true to the word of God, yet does not believe?


[/ QUOTE ]

No one does. The first commandment (Jesus in one place refers to this as the only commandment, meaning all others are included in it) is to love God. How can someone love God and not believe?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the Jewish interpretation, is it not? Don't Christians accept the first commandment as not accepting other gods or graven images?

Even so, the biggest reason there are non-believers is the complete lack of solid observable evidence of any kind. I just can't believe a 'just' God would make believing in His existence such an imperative rule while providing such scant and dubious evidence for intelligent people to go on.

Deeds and actions should be great indicators of whether a person is worthy of salvation and God's presence. After all, when judgement day arrives, believing will be a moot point (if He does exist).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Even so, the biggest reason there are non-believers is the complete lack of solid observable evidence of any kind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now thats just plain silly.

chez

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even so, the biggest reason there are non-believers is the complete lack of solid observable evidence of any kind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now thats just plain silly.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

My sarcasm meter is broken today. If you're serious, what do YOU think is the main reason for being an atheist?

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How can Jesus do something God can't?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you mean by this.

[ QUOTE ]

How exactly does the sacrifice "expiate our sins"?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know "exactly" but that God requires sacrifice - because the guilt of sin cannot just be overlooked, because He is perfectly just and righeous.

[ QUOTE ]

Why, exactly, is faith in Jesus so important?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is how God has decided to apply the effect of the atonement. Perhaps He chose this because it requires the human heart, the whole being, and therefore it involves the complete abandonment of one's claim to any form of goodness in his own right, but the total acceptance of his own guilt and the complete provision by God, so that it is by grace and not works. Faith is non-meritorious, it can't be confused with a work done in righteousness.

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps God also created a go-between for us atheists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." Your speculation could only be true if Jesus was lying.

[ QUOTE ]

All atheists are saved


[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

right·eous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rchs)
adj.
Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous parishioner.
In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment.
Morally justifiable: righteous anger. See Synonyms at moral.

how can a god that lets people be righteous?

[/ QUOTE ]

oops.

how can you say god is righteous if he lets people suffer.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
There's this elderly professor of chemistry at Boston University. A wonderful chap who goes out of his way to do what he, and most people, think is right, and is quick to help his fellow man. His knowledge of science does nothing to lessen his fervent belief in God. On the contrary it just puts him more in awe of something that could do such wondrous deeds.

He is sure that God created the Universe. He is sure that God infuses souls into humans. He is sure that God loves us. He believes that no man actually deserves an afterlife with God because of his sinful nature but he thinks that God is merciful and will at least sometimes allow those who believe in him, love him and do good works to enter his kingdom. He hopes he gets lucky but doesn't expect it.

He believes in the values and morals of Christianity. He thinks the teachings of Jesus are spot on and everyone should adhere to them.

But Jesus himself he puts in the category of Moses. Not for any philosophical reason. He doesn't feel there are any bad repercussions if Jesus was the son of God. He doesn't passionately disbelieve in the resurrection. He just thinks it didn't happen. Based on his knowledge of science, history or whatever. Exactly why isn't important except to say again that it isn't some deeply held conviction that he feels is important to have. It is simply because his thoughts tell him that the divinity of Jesus, and the parts of the bible that proclaim it are, for some reason, in error.

Again though, he agrees with Christian moral teachings, follows them, loves God, and basically feels about God almost exactly the same way that Christians feel about the God-Jesus combination. Except that he is pretty sure that Jesus was merely a great teacher.

This guy has no chance of escaping hell if he can't change his thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

For those who believe in the "you must accept Jesus as your personal savior" (not all protestants fall into this category, but I think this is who you are directing the question at), this man goes to hell. The reason is that people are not saved by leading a moral life, or doing what Jesus taught. People are saved because a perfect man (Jesus) died in their place (thus their penalty had been paid for them). People need only to accept this gift.

A man who does not believe in the divinity of Jesus cannot believe that he was a perfect (i.e. sinless) sacrifice in his place. I don't know on what basis this man expects to get into heaven, but if it is on the basis of his good deeds, then he has badly misunderstood Jesus' teachings.


Disclaimer: I am nessessarily not stating my personal beliefs in this post.

I hope you weren't expecting a unified answer form "protestents". Just look at the number of different peotestent denominations, and you can see that there is much disagreement amoungst us.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]

Paul the apostle said that if Jesus has not risen from the dead, then our faith is worthless and we are still dead in our sins. If Jesus has not been raised from the dead, then the Christian has no hope at all, and thus Christianity fails altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that he did not say that if a person is not convinced that Jesus was raised for the dead, then his faith is worthless.

[ QUOTE ]

And furthermore, if one denies the ressurection of Jesus, he denies a great portion of the New Testament which speaks about the ressurection. At which point is a person qualified to determine which parts of Gods word are real and which are not??

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a problem with protestantism in general (I am a protestant).


[ QUOTE ]



And to equate Jesus with Moses is a grave error. I would hope I can state this without an elaborate explanation, but if need be, we can delve further into this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bible quotes settle nothing on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=192) They rarely do. One of the biggest disagreements amongst Christian denominations, is exactly how someone is "saved". That's kinda important, I'd think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Different Christians (and different protestants) disagree on just about everything including how important their disagreements are.

I think the uniting factor in Christianity is the belief that people have a problem with God, and somehow Jesus on the cross can fix it.

If one's beliefs contradict this, then I don't see how one could call oneself a Christian.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even so, the biggest reason there are non-believers is the complete lack of solid observable evidence of any kind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now thats just plain silly.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

My sarcasm meter is broken today. If you're serious, what do YOU think is the main reason for being an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]
sarcasm + a smidgen of irony.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This is the Jewish interpretation, is it not? Don't Christians accept the first commandment as not accepting other gods or graven images?


[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus wasn't referring to the 10 Commandments only. He meant the highest law that God has given man is to love Him, and that all other law, including the Commandments, are summed up by that statement.

[ QUOTE ]

Even so, the biggest reason there are non-believers is the complete lack of solid observable evidence of any kind.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's plenty of evidence. The biggest reson for atheism is the heart not the head.

[ QUOTE ]

Deeds and actions should be great indicators of whether a person is worthy of salvation


[/ QUOTE ]

You've missed everything I've said. No one is worthy of salvation.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

how can you say god is righteous if he lets people suffer.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said before that suffering is the most difficult area for Christians. In theology it's known as the problem of evil. There are no easy answers but you can find much in depth discussion of this issue. What most theologians end up saying is that God is just and loving and that human suffering is dealt with by Him ultimately in a just and loving way. We believe that God does no wrong and though we can't give a detailed account of how everything fits into God's plan, we believe it does and that His plan is perfect.

The primary reason for human suffering is sin. We brought it on ourselves. And God sent His Son to suffer so that we don't have to experience the ultimate suffering.

Paul refers to the suffering of Christians as "momentary, light affliction" which in the end produces "an eternal weight of glory". He also recognizes that while experiencing suffering it doesn't appear either momentary or light. But viewed against the backdrop of eternity it is a small thing which we will someday realize.

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

how can you say god is righteous if he lets people suffer.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said before that suffering is the most difficult area for Christians. In theology it's known as the problem of evil. There are no easy answers but you can find much in depth discussion of this issue. What most theologians end up saying is that God is just and loving and that human suffering is dealt with by Him ultimately in a just and loving way. We believe that God does no wrong and though we can't give a detailed account of how everything fits into God's plan, we believe it does and that His plan is perfect.

The primary reason for human suffering is sin. We brought it on ourselves. And God sent His Son to suffer so that we don't have to experience the ultimate suffering.

Paul refers to the suffering of Christians as "momentary, light affliction" which in the end produces "an eternal weight of glory". He also recognizes that while experiencing suffering it doesn't appear either momentary or light. But viewed against the backdrop of eternity it is a small thing which we will someday realize.

[/ QUOTE ]

how can he be righteous and kill people by flooding and what not. how can he be righteous when he guided the church to do crusades and witchunts. how can he be righteous by letting infants in foreign countries starve to death????

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

how can he be righteous and kill people by flooding and what not. how can he be righteous when he guided the church to do crusades and witchunts. how can he be righteous by letting infants in foreign countries starve to death????


[/ QUOTE ]

There's no reason to believe he guided the church to the Crusades or withhunts. As for other suffering, see my other post.

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

how can he be righteous and kill people by flooding and what not. how can he be righteous when he guided the church to do crusades and witchunts. how can he be righteous by letting infants in foreign countries starve to death????


[/ QUOTE ]

There's no reason to believe he guided the church to the Crusades or withhunts. As for other suffering, see my other post.

[/ QUOTE ]

crusades and witchunts were done in Gods name. the church believed they were doing Gods will.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

crusades and witchunts were done in Gods name. the church believed they were doing Gods will.


[/ QUOTE ]

They had no Scriptural authority.

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

crusades and witchunts were done in Gods name. the church believed they were doing Gods will.


[/ QUOTE ]

They had no Scriptural authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

im curious has the catholic church ever publicly stated that the crusades and witch hunts were wrong?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

im curious has the catholic church ever publicly stated that the crusades and witch hunts were wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. I think they've said something about the Inquisition and Galileo.

If you read the Bible you will find that all of the main characters committed sin, save one.

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

im curious has the catholic church ever publicly stated that the crusades and witch hunts were wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. I think they've said something about the Inquisition and Galileo.

If you read the Bible you will find that all of the main characters committed sin, save one.

[/ QUOTE ]

so even the very people who are supposed to guide you could be leading you to your doom. how can you have fate that anything the church has been teaching is not a misinterpretaion. ooops were sorry.

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

crusades and witchunts were done in Gods name. the church believed they were doing Gods will.


[/ QUOTE ]

They had no Scriptural authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you think these people went to heaven or hell?

[David Sklansky]

Keep in mind that this guy was not just someone who does good works. He also believes in and loves what might be called the pre Jesus God. He also thinks Jesus was sent by God, and also thinks Jesus's words about sin etc are correct.

I would also like to remind everybody who says he must go to hell, that even godBoy disagrees.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

so even the very people who are supposed to guide you could be leading you to your doom. how can you have fate that anything the church has been teaching is not a misinterpretaion. ooops were sorry.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible warns against false prophets. God also promises He will lead you into the truth. You place your faith in God, not in man.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

do you think these people went to heaven or hell?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the judge. All who repent and trust in Christ will be saved. The greatest of the apostles, Paul, persecuted the church before he became a Christian.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He also thinks Jesus was sent by God, and also thinks Jesus's words about sin etc are correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's difficult for me to understand how someone can think Jesus was sent by God and was a great teacher but then ignores what Jesus said.

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

do you think these people went to heaven or hell?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the judge. All who repent and trust in Christ will be saved. The greatest of the apostles, Paul, persecuted the church before he became a Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

these people honestly felt they were doing the will of God. you have no opinion of what there fate may have been.

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

so even the very people who are supposed to guide you could be leading you to your doom. how can you have fate that anything the church has been teaching is not a misinterpretaion. ooops were sorry.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible warns against false prophets. God also promises He will lead you into the truth. You place your faith in God, not in man.

[/ QUOTE ]

how can you call the roman catholic church a false prophet. by doing this you are denying the very religon you are defending. isnt the church that you go to guiding your faith right now. the church was wrong about the witch hunts and many other things. how do you know what is right and wrong. everything you believe now comes from the teachings of your church (religon). if the church was wrong about the crusades and witch hunts why cant they be wrong about other things.

[IronUnkind]

They might not agree that Jesus actually said everything which the gospels attribute to him.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

They might not agree that Jesus actually said everything which the gospels attribute to him.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then the Bible isn't the standard he uses but he judges what is right by his own standard. How else can he decide what he will accept as what Jesus actually said?

[IronUnkind]

You haven't told me much about the gentleman's attitude toward the crucifixion of Jesus. Does he believe that a man's salvation is somehow related to this event?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

how can you call the roman catholic church a false prophet.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not catholic but even if I was I could still say they were wrong about certain things as judged by the Bible.

[ QUOTE ]

how do you know what is right and wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

First by what the Bible says. Second by conscience.

[ QUOTE ]

everything you believe now comes from the teachings of your church (religon).


[/ QUOTE ]

No. My primary source for what I believe is the Bible. I judge all doctrine by Scripture.

[ QUOTE ]

if the church was wrong about the crusades and witch hunts why cant they be wrong about other things.


[/ QUOTE ]

They can be and are. There is no denomination or theologian that is always right.

[David Sklansky]

"Then the Bible isn't the standard he uses but he judges what is right by his own standard. How else can he decide what he will accept as what Jesus actually said? "

Change right to "accurate".

Your problem here is that while you state plausibly "atheism comes from the heart and not the head", you want to extend that comment to Judaism or Cathlocism or even godBoy's brand of Protestantanism. But few would agree that devout believers in God who don't always believe the literal Bible always have ulterior motives for doing so.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But few would agree that devout believers in God who don't always believe the literal Bible always have ulterior motives for doing so


[/ QUOTE ]

The real issue is whether the Bible is God's Word. If it is your friend should believe what it says Jesus says. If it isn't, then nothing it says really matters. At the very least, we aren't in any better position with the Bible than without it, go for Plato, Islam, Nietzsche, whatever.

If you pick and choose what you will accept from the Bible you're just making up your own religion. If you do that and you say you love God what do you mean by God? What do you mean by His laws that you claim you keep? If there's no higher authority than man, there's no authority at all.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
"He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the guy that David talked about believed in God the father, and heard the words of Jesus.

[ QUOTE ]
"Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'"

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the bible says that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Jesus said something like 'Come to me and drink all who are thirsty' or 'whoever comes to me for drink will never thirst again'.

[ QUOTE ]
"For by grace are ye saved through faith ... not of works."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all on God's part - we don't have to do a thing.

[ QUOTE ]
"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that this is referring to life on earth, not eternity.

[ QUOTE ]
"... if thou wilt enter unto life, keep the commandments."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that Jesus was saying if you follow the commandments you will have the abundant life I was talking about...

[ QUOTE ]
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the point I cannot answer, only this friend of David's can know. It is a question of Jesus' identity, do you believe who I am?

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

This does not say "He who is baptised not shall be damned"
Belief in God is the requirement here... I think.

[ QUOTE ]
"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

[/ QUOTE ]

I have said terrible things with my mouth and with the same mouth asked forgiveness. Not an issue of salvation. With words you accept Jesus offer.


[ QUOTE ]
"whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoever seeks after God...

[ QUOTE ]
According to Proverbs 16:4: God made the "wicked" for "the day of evil" (i.e. judgment &amp; damnation). Of course, this makes no sense in light of passages that confirm or suggest that Jesus died for a small number of the elect; or that suggest all will be saved: John 1:29, 4:42, 1 Corinthians 15:29, Hebrews 2:9, 1 John 4:14.

[/ QUOTE ]

John 1:29, 4:42, "Look the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world", I think that Jesus died for everyones individual sins, not just those who would believe in him. This does not suggest that everyone on earth will be saved, but that if they choose Him - it's already paid for.

Corinthians 15:29, points out the need for a ressurection. Not if you believe with your whole heart that it occured.

Hebrews 2:9, The same thing - he has seen and been through every pain that comes with each wrong we have committed.

1 John 4:14. The same thing. The offer is out there - anyone of the world can accept Jesus' invitation.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Even so, the biggest reason there are non-believers is the complete lack of solid observable evidence of any kind. I just can't believe a 'just' God would make believing in His existence such an imperative rule while providing such scant and dubious evidence for intelligent people to go on.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if God is interested to see who will seek him out, if it were obvious what would the point of earth be?

[ QUOTE ]
Deeds and actions should be great indicators of whether a person is worthy of salvation and God's presence. After all, when judgement day arrives, believing will be a moot point (if He does exist).

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe this is the reasoning you would use if you were God. but you must understand that God's thoughts would be far different to yours. The biblical God says that deeds and actions are not important to salvation, only your response to God - often this shows up in deeds and actions though. The biblical God just wants to know if you want to know him.

[IronUnkind]

Was Jesus crucified in the third hour (Mk. 15:25) or sometime after (Jn.19:14)? If these verses do not agree should I stop believing that the Bible is God's Word?

[IronUnkind]

Today, three people told me the following --

Person 1: "On Tuesday, NotReady said that every word in The Bible is true."

Person 2: "The other day NotReady said that The Bible was the inspired Word of God."

Person 3: "On Tuesday, Not Ready said that the Bible contains precisely zero errors."

You undoubtedly said something about the Bible, and it is likely that you said it on Tuesday. I have a general sense of what you stated, but not enough to be clear whether or not you advocate the plenary verbal inerrancy of Scripture.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
If you pick and choose what you will accept from the Bible you're just making up your own religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so very funny coming from you. Maybe I'll start a thread on it.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But few would agree that devout believers in God who don't always believe the literal Bible always have ulterior motives for doing so


[/ QUOTE ]

The real issue is whether the Bible is God's Word. If it is your friend should believe what it says Jesus says. If it isn't, then nothing it says really matters. At the very least, we aren't in any better position with the Bible than without it, go for Plato, Islam, Nietzsche, whatever.

If you pick and choose what you will accept from the Bible you're just making up your own religion. If you do that and you say you love God what do you mean by God? What do you mean by His laws that you claim you keep? If there's no higher authority than man, there's no authority at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe he believes that God put His spirit in his heart &amp; wrote His laws there too? Crazy idea, I know. 8-|

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Meh. The Bible as we read it today is a translation of a translation of a translation of a language nobody has spoken for centuries. Anyone who has any background in the study of language should realize that there's a reasonable chance that what we rread today is not precisely what the author wrote or meant.

[Lestat]

I'm refraining from responding to you and NotReady because I wouldn't know how to without totally hijacking this thread. In short, I guess there are those who find something extremely compelling about blind faith, while others find the same notion repelling.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh. The Bible as we read it today is a translation of a translation of a translation of a language nobody has spoken for centuries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true, actually. The most popular versions are translated from greek &amp; hebrew texts -- the language it was written in, and still spoken today.

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

how can you call the roman catholic church a false prophet.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not catholic but even if I was I could still say they were wrong about certain things as judged by the Bible.

[ QUOTE ]

how do you know what is right and wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

First by what the Bible says. Second by conscience.

[ QUOTE ]

everything you believe now comes from the teachings of your church (religon).


[/ QUOTE ]

No. My primary source for what I believe is the Bible. I judge all doctrine by Scripture.

[ QUOTE ]

if the church was wrong about the crusades and witch hunts why cant they be wrong about other things.


[/ QUOTE ]

They can be and are. There is no denomination or theologian that is always right.

[/ QUOTE ]

you said that the your church or religon does not guide you and that you take the word of the bible. if the catholic church can misinterpret the bible what makes you think that you wont. even though the crusades, witch hunts and inquisition were wrong it helped to catapult a God based religon. if these things were not done by the catholic church to promote there religon it may be a whole different ball game today.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess there are those who find something extremely compelling about blind faith,


[/ QUOTE ]

Only blind people think the faith of Christians is blind.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

but not enough to be clear whether or not you advocate the plenary verbal inerrancy of Scripture.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God in the original manuscripts.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
in the original manuscripts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we have all these? Think/research before you answer.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do we have all these? Think/research before you answer.


[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know we have none of them. The reason we phrase it like that, as I'm sure you must know and you just want to stir up a controversy, is because the manuscripts we have were copied by hand many, many times, and some copy errors, which are mostly easily identifiable, exist in those documents.

Do you think the Bible is the Word of God? Do you think it's infallible?

[Lestat]

Says you.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the Bible is the Word of God? Do you think it's infallible?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know I do because I have said so in the past. But I have also said that the interpretational disagreements of christians shows the need for an authentic interpreter, and the faith that the Holy Spirit has insured that we have received accurate translations and interpretations down to our time.

The lack of or refusal to acknowledge an authentic interpreter is what leads to picking and choosing and a plethora of differing denominations which continue to increase, and which was the point of my earlier post to you on that and how funny you should comment on picking and choosing when that is the basis of protestantantism.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

how funny you should comment on picking and choosing when that is the basis of protestantantism.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to debate Protestant versus catholic with you but to compare someone who rejects Jesus as Lord with Protestant picking and choosing is plain myopic.

[IronUnkind]

The Bible is written in Koine Greek, which differs from the modern version.

[Lestat]

Do you think God would allow something of great importance to be misinterpreted? I'm interested in your answer, but...

Regardless of how you answer, why should you (or anyone else), be willing to follow an interpreter resulting from imperfect humans who according to you and NotReady are not worthy of salvation in the first place?

[IronUnkind]

I know what you think. I was not trying to pin down your personal thoughts. I was illustrating a method by which one might "rightly divide the word of truth" in the face of divergent accounts.

The integrity of your faith may depend upon the existence of hypothetical perfect manuscripts, but it doesn't do much for the man in the OP. If he is a serious student of scripture, then he will be forced to grapple with questions such as the one I posed below (re: the timetable of the crucifixion).

More to the point, he may decide that verses in the gospels which demonstrate that Jesus was aware of his destiny (specifically, the resurrection) are the product of later redaction. Due to this, he may conclude that the resurrection was merely a metaphor which Jesus's followers grafted onto his teachings.

[IronUnkind]

It is not quite so bleak as you think. The Masoretes were fastidious scribes, as confirmed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The NT is an entirely different story, but the multiplicity of codices is a double-edged sword.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If he is a serious student of scripture, then he will be forced to grapple with questions such as the one I posed below (re: the timetable of the crucifixion).


[/ QUOTE ]

I have a policy regarding alleged Bible errors. Due to the availability of the net and the overwhelming material on this subject, I don't respond to these allegations unless some preliminary research has been done. I do this for time reasons. You can google as easily as I. I've researched many of these questions(incuding this one) and have yet to find any serious problem. Anyone who is a serious Bible student can find some discussion of any Bible issue. I'm not an expert on inerrancy, so I'm reluctant to chase down every supposed "error".

[ QUOTE ]

More to the point, he may decide that verses in the gospels which demonstrate that Jesus was aware of his destiny (specifically, the resurrection) are the product of later redaction. Due to this, he may conclude that the resurrection was merely a metaphor which Jesus's followers grafted onto his teachings.


[/ QUOTE ]

He may conclude that. He may be an unbeliever. God leaves you that option.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that this guy was not just someone who does good works. He also believes in and loves what might be called the pre Jesus God. He also thinks Jesus was sent by God, and also thinks Jesus's words about sin etc are correct.

I would also like to remind everybody who says he must go to hell, that even godBoy disagrees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus said "I am the way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father, but by me." I believe that if he is to get to heaven, it must be through Jesus (as some sort of intermediary).

There are those who believe that in order for this to happen, he must belive that Jesus died for his sins, and accept Him ans his personal savior before he dies (but I am not one of them).

[Benman]

Protestant does not necessarily mean evangelical. Many protestant religions don't pay any attention to "must believe XYZ" or you go to hell. Mainstream Epicopaleans don't, for example.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't respond to these allegations unless some preliminary research has been done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you are applying this standard to yourself. I will lay odds that I have done more "preliminary research" than you have.

[ QUOTE ]
You can google as easily as I.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say this as if I've just stumbled onto the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not an expert on inerrancy, so I'm reluctant to chase down every supposed "error".

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily, you don't have to. I gave you specific biblical references. I am not saying that you should be troubled, only that David's subject might be. I'm curious what your reasons are for thinking that the bible MUST be inerrant?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I hope you are applying this standard to yourself. I will lay odds that I have done more "preliminary research" than you have.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I try to speak only about things I have studied and thought about. If I'm factually incorrect about something I hope that will be indicated to me.

[ QUOTE ]

You say this as if I've just stumbled onto the subject.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's usually the case on this forum. If it doesn't apply to you, fine. If you want to discuss an "error" and have researched it I would prefer to start with the site you are using and why you disagree with their answer. The whole point of this is twofold - to save time and to hopefully encourage others to use the amazing resources of the net.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm curious what your reasons are for thinking that the bible MUST be inerrant?


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible itself claims to be the Word of God, inspired by God. It's logical that Perfection itself doesn't make errors. The Bible requires us to trust God and that presupposes He delivers to us the truth. There are many verses that directly and indirectly speak of the necessity and trustworthiness of God's Word. One of my favorites is:

"Man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God".

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How can Jesus do something God can't?


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean, Jesus can make us worthy of God but God (on his own) can't.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know "exactly" but that God requires sacrifice - because the guilt of sin cannot just be overlooked, because He is perfectly just and righeous.

[/ QUOTE ]
So this doesn't sound bizarre to you, like some throwback to primative paganism - gods that require sacrifices to gain favour?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why, exactly, is faith in Jesus so important?


[/ QUOTE ]
This is how God has decided to apply the effect of the atonement. Perhaps He chose this because it requires the human heart, the whole being, and therefore it involves the complete abandonment of one's claim to any form of goodness in his own right, but the total acceptance of his own guilt and the complete provision by God, so that it is by grace and not works. Faith is non-meritorious, it can't be confused with a work done in righteousness.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least this has somekind of internal logic, but it still strikes me as strange. Supposedly, he requires a level of faith such that no obvious proof of his claims will ever appear. Instead, God/Jesus leave vague, third-hand accounts of questionable origin. For those of us who require more before we take such a plunge it's "too bad sinner". This, apparently, is just. The most gullible are saved, the most prudent are left to burn, and those in between are in a personal revelation lottery.

Finally, Jesus requires us to prove ourselves to him while refusing to prove himself to us. A twisted double standard if ever there was one.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps God also created a go-between for us atheists.


[/ QUOTE ]
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." Your speculation could only be true if Jesus was lying.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I would still go through Jesus. I would just go through What's-his-name first. Like this:

SilentAcorns =&gt; What's-his-name =&gt; Jesus =&gt; God

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I mean, Jesus can make us worthy of God but God (on his own) can't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus is God. He is also sent by God. God justifies us and does so because of the atonement of Christ on the cross. If what you are asking is why can't God forgive us without the atonement the answer lies in the nature of God. He is absolute justice and can't simply look away from sin and ignore it. Sin must be paid for and it is God who made the payment.

[ QUOTE ]

So this doesn't sound bizarre to you, like some throwback to primative paganism - gods that require sacrifices to gain favour?


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe paganism developed from the original situation of man after the fall. Cain and Abel offered sacrifices even though there is no record of God requiring it. I believe the pagan systems are corruptions of God's position that sin requires satisfaction. The Bible also tells us that all the sacrifices offered by man, even though required by God in the Mosaic law, do nothing to actually expiate sin, that they are nothing but a teaching tool meant to drive home to us the serious nature of sin and emphasize the importance of the one true atonement.

[ QUOTE ]

Instead, God/Jesus leave vague, third-hand accounts of questionable origin. For those of us who require more before we take such a plunge it's "too bad sinner". This, apparently, is just. The most gullible are saved, the most prudent are left to burn, and those in between are in a personal revelation lottery.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think they are third hand accounts? Why is the origin questionable? As far as requiring more, the evidence is sufficient, even overwhelming. The Bible says that man is without excuse because God Himself reveals the truth about His existence and nature to everyone.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible is written in Koine Greek, which differs from the modern version.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could nitpick what you just wrote... but instead I'll answer with: yes, and modern greek stemmed from Koine greek, and is very similar, and modern speakers could and do understand Koine greek quite well. AND - people can and do still speak Koine greek (mostly when reading out of the Bible). Geez.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I guess there are those who find something extremely compelling about blind faith,


[/ QUOTE ]

Only blind people think the faith of Christians is blind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&amp;chapter=20&amp;verse=29&amp;version=31&amp;context =verse)

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God in the original manuscripts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do we have all these? Think/research before you answer.


[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know we have none of them. The reason we phrase it like that, as I'm sure you must know and you just want to stir up a controversy, is because the manuscripts we have were copied by hand many, many times, and some copy errors, which are mostly easily identifiable, exist in those documents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did God make sure that the original manuscripts were infallible, but didn't do the same for the copies?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why did God make sure that the original manuscripts were infallible, but didn't do the same for the copies?


[/ QUOTE ]

I would use inerrant in this context. I believe God does ensure that the Bible survives as He intended. But think about not only every copy of the Bible but every text ever quoted. I could misquote in this post for instance. Do you think God should miraculously correct it? If a printer misses a typo in a 100,000 run, should God intervene?

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why did God make sure that the original manuscripts were infallible, but didn't do the same for the copies?


[/ QUOTE ]

how do you know your interpretation of the bible is correct?
I would use inerrant in this context. I believe God does ensure that the Bible survives as He intended. But think about not only every copy of the Bible but every text ever quoted. I could misquote in this post for instance. Do you think God should miraculously correct it? If a printer misses a typo in a 100,000 run, should God intervene?

[/ QUOTE ]

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why did God make sure that the original manuscripts were infallible, but didn't do the same for the copies?


[/ QUOTE ]

I would use inerrant in this context. I believe God does ensure that the Bible survives as He intended. But think about not only every copy of the Bible but every text ever quoted. I could misquote in this post for instance. Do you think God should miraculously correct it? If a printer misses a typo in a 100,000 run, should God intervene?

[/ QUOTE ]

He should have either made sure that the copies that we would have today were also inerrant, or made sure that the originals were still available. If God made sure that the people writing the originals didn't mess anything up, I don't see why he couldn't continue to do that today. Actually, that would be quite a miracle, so it would serve two purposes, actually.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He should have either


[/ QUOTE ]

At our next committee meeting I will explain to God how He messed up.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He should have either


[/ QUOTE ]

At our next committee meeting I will explain to God how He messed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I'm sure he knew some people would be going to hell for his mistake... but, it's all good.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to discuss an "error" and have researched it I would prefer to start with the site you are using and why you disagree with their answer. The whole point of this is twofold - to save time and to hopefully encourage others to use the amazing resources of the net.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not, in this case, using the net as a research tool. I provided primary source reference (i.e. The Bible itself). You may, of course, feel free to avail yourself of Google in order to respond.

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible itself claims to be the Word of God, inspired by God. It's logical that Perfection itself doesn't make errors. The Bible requires us to trust God and that presupposes He delivers to us the truth. There are many verses that directly and indirectly speak of the necessity and trustworthiness of God's Word. One of my favorites is:

"Man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that verses such as this are sufficient support for the doctrine. Part of the problem is one of canonicity. Do you, for instance, accept The Book of Enoch as inerrant? Shepherd of The Hermas? How about 1 Maccabees? When Paul claims that all scripture is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16), can we rightly conclude that he was including the epistle in which he was currently writing the statement? And should I be convinced that "inspiration" and inerrancy are equivalent?

[IronUnkind]

Thanks for not nitpicking.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Part of the problem is one of canonicity.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a problem with canonicity nor am I qualified to debate it. If that's what is preventing you from accepting Christ there are plenty of good books and net sites that deal with the issue.

[IronUnkind]

I'm already a Christian -- I worship Christ not the Bible.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm already a Christian -- I worship Christ not the Bible.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm already a Christian -- I worship Christ not the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

*SMACK*

[Grinder29]

Yehoshua (Anglicized to "Jesus" through the Greek) said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by me." In Hebrew tradition, sin required a blood sacrifice. Ostensibly, the Hebrew Messiah provided that sacrifices once and for all time. Thus all who do go to the Christian heaven DO go through Him, for he sacrificed himself to absolve sins. This statement alone does not specifically imply that faith in a miraculous resurrection is necessary.

Christians profess to follow a loving, just god. If you don't love/believe in him and his son, he sends you to hell (whatever your interpretation of that is. Is this love or bullying?

I should mention that I am a Messianic believer. I just play one hell of a Devil's Advocate /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[godBoy]

Do you know if the original text used the same words?

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
-Phil 1:2

[/ QUOTE ]

This 'work' seems to be in a far different context to...

[ QUOTE ]
For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.
-Jas 2:2

[/ QUOTE ]

The body here is dead without the spirit, the physical body..
The faith here is dead without works, I don't think that a dead faith means an eternal sepeartion from God.
More a useless one - on earth.