Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence?
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 241 of 301 (212723)
05-30-2005 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Faith
05-30-2005 3:10 PM


Re: Your post #214: not faith but ??
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
I'll get back to the other thoughts later. However, this was one area that I thought I should clarify quickly.
Faith writes:
NO CHRISTIAN believes the Law could save anybody.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Exactly right.
Faith writes:
Paul says that explicitly -- All the Law can do is condemn.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
...here we go again.
Yes, if you're looking at it from that negative perspective, then of course all the law can do is condemn.
Faith writes:
Well that's what Paul SAYS, Mr. Ex. The Law could not save, it is a tutor to bring us to Christ. As Paul says in Galatians 3:10-11
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Anyone who lives by the law is "under the curse." I see no ambiguity there.
The ambiguity lies in the assertion of whether this curse results in eternal damnation or not. I've already explained how the Pauline passages did not by necessity need to be read to imply this.
Furthermore, what people see as a curse is usually a blessing in disguise.
For example, many people believe that:
God punished Adam and Eve by cursing them and expelling them out of the Garden of Eden.
But that's not what actually happened.
God protected Adam and Eve by exposing their sin and expelling them out of the Garden of Eden.
Whether one sees the account in the Garden of Eden as merely symbolic and allegorical language of some kind of literal event, the message remains the same: If Adam and Eve had partaken in the tree of life in their sinful state, they would have effectively been trapped forever in their sins and would have had no chance for redemption -- even the redemption crucified on the cross for our sakes would not have absolved this.
Similarly, when the Israelites came under the curse of the Law, God did not place it on them so as to lead them to death if they disobeyed.
More to the point, when the Israelites came under the curse of the Law, God placed it on them so as to protect them from destroying their own chance of salvation which would be found in Christ's death at the "appropriate time".
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
However, if you're looking at it from a positive perspective, then you would also see that the law is perfectly capable of pointing out our need for the Messiah.
Faith writes:
Our need of the Messiah is not our possession of the Messiah.
Correct. Our need of the Messiah is the Messiah's possession of us.
Faith writes:
In other words, in a more proper understanding, you would see that the law is perfectly capable of saving us by pointing out our sins and thus leading us in the direction of Christ.
Faith writes:
That's what its being a "tutor to bring us to Christ" means, but pointing out our sins and leading us in the direction of Christ is not possessing Christ.
Exactly. Pointing out our sins and leading us in the direction of Christ is Christ drawing near to us.
Faith writes:
I believe the entire Old Testament was given to reveal Christ. Why would you think I wouldn't see it that way?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
I've never said you didn't. It's the implications of the final objective of the Law itself that I'm debating.
Faith writes:
If you read the sequence of our conversation you'll see that you just got finished saying you expected Legend and me to disagree with you about these things.
Faith, I've already said that we do agree on many things. However, what we do not agree on is that the Law was established to condemn those that have not lived up to it to hell. This is more than a semantic issue when, because of our differences of opinion, you conclude that it means that all non-believers are going to endless torment whereas I see it as Paul chastising fellow believers with little to no intent to condemn the whole populace of non-believers to endless torment.
This is not merely an issue of semantics. It's a matter of attempting to discern an accurate understanding of God's grace as the Spirit allows. It's also an issue which has turned Legend right off from Christianity.
Faith writes:
It is very confusing when you do not stick to the actual conversation we are having.
uhhhh....
Faith writes:
I do believe the Israelites were saved by their FAITH, however, those among them who HAD faith, that is, which wasn't all of them.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Which comes back to a deeper mystery than what you're willing to acknowledge.
Faith writes:
This is tendentious language, this idea of what I'm supposedly "willing" to do, and improper debate.
What? Like when you accused me of using a carnal or fleshly interpretation among other things such as possibly being deluded or subject to some hertical views?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
If the Israelites were saved by their faith, then this requires a cognitive process very similar to that which is involved in our very actions. Whether walking or talking, thinking or believing, this still implies a human effort to accomplish the goal, which negates any strict interpretation of one being saved by grace.
In other words, if the human mind must work to acknowledge Christ in order to be saved, then it is also the human mind that is "working" to save itself and salvation is not solely the work of the Holy Spirit.
Faith writes:
This I'm "unwilling to acknowledge?" No, I consider it very bad reasoning. There is no such effort involved in faith and even if there were, the definition of salvation by works is not about the effort involved.
Sure it is.
This is one of the major sticking points of Protestantism as I understand it (and have experienced it).
As Jaroslav Pelikan notes, there is no evidence that Luther as a young man considered himself anything but a faithful son of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet he was already puzzling over questions that later led to the Reformation.
These questions did not deal with the external structure of the church or its moral values,all of which Luther considered important but not vital. Luther concerned himself with the meaning of the Christian Gospel:
How does an individual find favor with God?
To Luther, this was not a problem to be settled by discussion of human merit in relation to divine grace. It was an intensely personal problem that affected Luther himself.
For Luther, again as noted by Jaroslav Pelikan, the life of the church, especially the ordered life of the monastery, provided remedies for those individuals who were troubled by their relation to the judgement of an angry God.
For example, individuals could say more prayers, fast more strictly, and even whip themselves more mercilessly. Finally, as Luther felt, they would achieve the certain knowledge that God regarded them favorably.
Luther actually tried all these methods, but none of them worked for him. In fact, the harder he tried to please God, the more he realized that he was depedning not on God, but on his own efforts
Faith writes:
Much effort is involved in the works done in faith also. We are told to "run the race." You are misdefining "works" in terms of "effort." The works that do not save are works done without faith, done in the flesh, an outward show which contradicts the condition of the heart. Effort has nothing to do with it.
This contradicts the clear Scriptural passages of Paul which teach that salvation is exclusively the work of God -- and not based on our "works" at all.
Again, as Jaroslav Pelikan notes, the answer for many of these questions came to Luther in 1508 or 1509 while he was studying the Book of Psalms and the Epistles of Paul. Luther concluded that God's favor is not a "prize" to be won, but a gift. Only when individuals stop trying to achieve God's favor by their own abilities and accomplishments can they understand the grace of God. God justifies individuals -- that is, makes them righteous before him -- not through their moral goodness or faithfulness to duty, but because of his kindness.
God's kindness, Luther believed, was given to the world in the life, death and Resurrection of Christ Jesus. This was actually the meaning of justification solely by faith in God's grace, the doctrine for which Luther became famous.
Faith writes:
I don't see anything to this but a semantic/definitional mistake.
Which pretty much indicates that you've already made up your mind -- or at least have closed your mind to any other alternative.
The point is this Faith: even if you claim that you are justified by your "faith", you are still claiming to have "accomplished" something independently of the Lord in order to gain your salvation. I state with clear conviction that we can do nothing good except by the Holy Spirit -- so that the Lord may have all the glory. This is to say, if there is faith found in us, it is because Christ is present in us and believing on our behalf.
In fact, all the we have to do is "nothing", and the Spirit will guide us as he sees fit and lead us to do the good works that the Lord has fore-ordained that we should walk in.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-30-2005 07:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 05-30-2005 3:10 PM Faith has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 242 of 301 (212724)
05-30-2005 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
05-30-2005 3:16 PM


Re: Request for condensation of posts
I admit that I'm gulty of long messages. But when it comes to important things like this, I'm like a dog trying to get every little scrap of marrow from the theological bones so to speak.
I see that you've simply agreed to disagree on many points, which is fine to me. However, I wouldn't necessarilly claim victory in doing so.
I've thought, prayed, and researched a lot about these questions and I'm sharing them as I feel the Spirit explains them. If you do not wish to explore them to the level that I've looked into them, then fine.
I for one, however, am not interested in the same old dried-up sound-bites and buzz-words that typically accompany some of the more shallow internet diatribes.
I apologize in advance. However, if you want to discuss this with me, then be prepared for more of the same. If we're only limited to 300 posts per thread, then I'm not holding back on this one.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-30-2005 07:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 05-30-2005 3:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 05-30-2005 10:12 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 243 of 301 (212734)
05-30-2005 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
05-30-2005 7:51 PM


Re: Request for condensation of posts
I don't want more of the same, sorry. There's too much going on, and actually most of it is repetitive but just too hard to sort out -- it really shouldn't be all that hard for you to condense it to the main points. but I guess I'll have to bow out. Thanks for the debate.
This message has been edited by Faith, 05-30-2005 10:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-30-2005 7:51 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 244 of 301 (212760)
05-31-2005 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
05-27-2005 4:45 PM


Salvation
Mr Ex Nihilo writes:
Does anyone feel that I've dealt unfairly with Legend or Faith here? What Faith and I don't agree on is whether the Pauline writings were written with the specific intention of damning those that do not believe in Christ. I specifically disagree with the "assumption" that "Paul is unambiguously saying in Romans that no one can be saved by deeds of the law -- or only by faith in Jesus for that matter."
No, I don’t believe you have dealt unfairly with Legend or Faith in the general sense. There may be specific exchanges that cross the line, I don’t know, this is a very long thread. But I think the overall debate has been well represented on both sides.
I‘ve looked through the thread and tried to find a few quotes that summarize the positions on both sides:
Mr Ex Nihilo writes:
I maintain that many Christians do not believe that Paul is unambiguously saying in Romans that no one can be saved by deeds of the law -- or only by faith in Jesus for that matter.
And I've pointed to many denominations that do not think this is what Paul is saying -- because they all agree in one form or another that people who do not believe in Christ can nonetheless be saved by Christ.
Mr Ex. I believe these statements summarize your position very well and also this one:
Mr Ex Nihilo writes:
Although none of these groups are in exact agreement as to how these people can be saved, all are agreed in one form or another that Christ can nonetheless saves those that do not know him or have confessed his name anyway.
Faith’s point:
Faith writes:
You haven't shown this from Romans 1-7. You quote other statements by Paul in many of his other letters but never once quote from Romans 1-7.
The other passages you quote are addressed to believers, those who already have faith in Christ, and are about how we are to walk in the Holy Spirit now that we are saved. They are not about the point at issue, which is Paul's presentation of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in the first chapters of Romans.
And Legends response:
Legend writes:
Listen Mr Ex., enough beating around the bush, does Paul say we can only be saved by faith or not ?
If no, tell me what he says about how we can be saved.
If yes, isn't the implication that people who don't know jesus (and can't have faith in him) will not be saved?
There are several excellent issues here:
  1. Is salvation by faith alone?
  2. In Romans, is Paul excluding any other means of salvation other than by faith?
  3. If People don’t know Jesus or the Gospels, will they be saved?
I’ll respond to these but my response will be in the context of my own interpretation. I will not speak for others nor am I responding to what various denominations believe.
I’ll start with ‘A: Is salvation by faith alone?
Tough question, This is perhaps the most important question in all of Christian theology and is the main cause of the Reformation. It’s also a question whose answer affects B and C.
Orthodox Christians says no and Fundamentalist Christians says yes. To me, the issue rest with the word alone. This means that faith alone is needed for salvation. I believe this to be true, but i also believe this does not imply exclusivity, meaning no other way to salvation acceptable. I don't believe the case is made in Romans. So considering Romans 1-7, do those verses clearly describe salvation by faith alone? Yes, in that only faith is needed for salvation, but that doesn't address exclusivity.
NASB writes:
Rom.1:16-17 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, but the righteous man shall live by faith.
This is just of one of many examples that point to salvation by faith and in my mind there is no question that Paul is revealing a salvation by faith alone. But is it by faith alone and to the exclusion of other paths to God? I don’t see it here.
Continuing in Romans,
NASB writes:
Rom 2:6-11 - (God) will render to each person according to his deeds. To those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.
Here, Paul speaks of works impartially judged by God and the corresponding rewards and penalties. Perseverance in doing good works leads to eternal life. Not by following the Law and there is no mention of faith here. I believe these passages would cover those people who lived in areas of the world which have not been exposed to the Christian message. Or perhaps they were born at a time when the Gospel had not reached their locale.
There are other passages in the Bible that imply that such individuals will be lumped together with those who had heard and rejected Christ's message. They would remain unsaved and will spend eternity in Hell, because salvation is only through faith in Christ.
Those Christian denominations which believe in a literal Hell of eternal punishment are faced with a serious conflict: It is difficult for them to maintain the traditional belief that non-Christians will be sent to eternal punishment in Hell. A growing percentage of people believe that this is incompatible with the concept of a loving God and elementary justice.
They ask how a person in India or Africa who has never heard of Christ or of Christianity be tortured for eternity, mainly because they lived in the wrong part of the world. Or for that matter, a person who has been raised in another religion and has only peripheral knowledge of Christianity.
Some might argue the punishment of the ignorant will not be as severe as those who willfully reject the Good News. But to me, any punishment of the ignorant would be an injustice.
Continuing with Romans:
NASB writes:
Rom 3:20-28 - because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.
This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Here Paul is reinforcing his supporting arguments for salvation by faith through the revelation of righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. There is justification by faith apart from the Law. This was a revelation to the Jews who held the Law as paramount.
I believe Paul is completely unambiguous about the doctrine of salvation by faith. He reiterates that theme in chapter 10:
NASB writes:
Romans 10:9-10 - that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
There are no works involved here, only a confession of faith and belief. But Paul does go on to discuss Gentiles who do not have the Law:
NASB writes:
Rom 2:12-16 - For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
Paul is speaking of the Jewish Law when he says Law, or more specifically the Jewish religion. But couldn’t this also be relevant to today and mean those without the Gospel, those who do not have the Gospel Law.
Even today, wouldn’t it be true that those who do not have the Law but show the work of the Law written on their hearts, will be declared righteous when they are judged by Jesus? To me, this is one of the strongest verses to indicate the disposition of those that do not have the Law, or more broadly those that have not been exposed to the teachings of Jesus.
This is quite different from having access to the teachings of Jesus and then rejecting them. I believe Faith has acknowledged this in the following quote:
Faith writes:
It's an impression based on the fact that some people do live by a wisdom that is consistent with God's Law, as "written in the heart." If they live such an intuitively wise life in accord with His principles, even if they don't know Christ I expect God to judge them leniently. As I said, I'm not sure what form this would take. It isn't the same thing as salvation according to scripture, simply lesser punishment. There's really not much to go on in scripture about these things, so I'm content to leave it to Him in any case. Whatever He judges it will be perfect justice.
I agree. So those without the Gospel and by extension those who have never heard of Jesus Christ but who instinctively follow His teaching by conviction of conscience, would be judged accordingly. Wouldn’t God’s perfect justice allow them to enter into God’s kingdom? Won’t they be saved by their virtuous heart? This does not replace or exclude salvation by faith, it simply offers another path to God.
So regarding Romans 1-7, I can’t find any reason to conclude that faith in Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation. It is certainly one path, but I don’t find the case for exclusion in Romans. Maybe I’m missing something, but that’s my interpretation.
To me this is as it should be because we cannot develop a formula that Jesus will use when he judges the hearts of people.
Only Jesus will know all of the individual specific situations and secrets of each heart that is judged. But even if it appears to us to be an unfair judgement, Paul has an answer in Romans 9:18; "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Now if we go beyond Romans, there are many references to other paths to salvation besides faith.
The synoptic Gospels, and in particular the sayings directly attributable to Jesus, teach that one path to salvation is achievable by doing good works. They appear to allow for non-Christians to be saved if they follow a lifetime of service to humanity.
In Mat 25:37-46, the separation of the sheep and goats is an example of how living a righteous life will result in salvation. Here Jesus does not mention faith, but clearly offers a path to salvation by helping the poor, visiting people in jail, supporting the ill, giving up ones possessions, etc. In other words, by works. In Mat 25:34, salvation is the just reward: Then the King will say, ‘Come you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. There is no mention of faith here, only works.
The question of faith alone or faith plus works is made difficult by some hard to reconcile Bible passages. Compare Romans 3:28, 5:1 and Galatians 3:24 with James 2:24. Some see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith) and James (salvation is by faith plus works). In reality, Paul and James did not disagree at all.
The main disagreement some people claim is over the relationship between faith and works. Paul dogmatically says that justification is by faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9) while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works.
I believe this apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18). James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26).
James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his life. If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his life — then he likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).
Paul says the same thing in his writings. The good fruit believers should have in their life is listed in Galatians 5:22-23. Immediately after telling us that we are saved by faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul informs us that we were created to do good works (Ephesians 2:10).
Paul expects just as much of a changed life as James does, Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come (2 Corinthians 5:17) So in my opinion, James and Paul do not disagree on their teaching on salvation.
So in summary and to answer the three questions raised at the beginning of this post:
  1. Is salvation by faith alone?
    Yes, Paul explains it clearly in Romans
  2. In Romans, is Paul excluding any other means of salvation other than by faith?
    No
  3. If People don’t know Jesus or the Gospels, will they be saved?
Yes, I believe they will be when they are found righteous by Jesus at judgment (Mat 25).

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-27-2005 4:45 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 05-31-2005 5:16 AM Monk has replied
 Message 246 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-31-2005 6:39 AM Monk has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 245 of 301 (212775)
05-31-2005 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Monk
05-31-2005 12:28 AM


Re: Salvation
Is salvation by faith alone?
Yes, Paul explains it clearly in Romans
In Romans, is Paul excluding any other means of salvation other than by faith?
No
If People don’t know Jesus or the Gospels, will they be saved?
Yes, I believe they will be when they are found righteous by Jesus at judgment (Mat 25).
This is really more of a general post to you and Mr Ex both. I really don't want to continue arguing the specifics of the topic but I do have two leftover thoughts that continue to nag me.
1) While it may not be completely clear in Romans itself (and I'm not sure it isn't, I just haven't studied it that closely) that "Paul is [not] excluding any other means of salvation than by faith" as you and Mr. Ex have agreed is the case, I really have to disagree that he could mean that becasue of other scriptures. Scripture is so clear elsewhere that "ALL have sinned" and "There is no one good, no not one" and "All our righteousness is as filthy rags" -- and this includes the most righteous among us and the most righteous of all who have ever lived anywhere. I picked Confucius and Lao Tsu (well actually I'm not all that sure about Confucius but I have read quite a bit of Taoism) to represent the most righteous because I've been impressed by their basic wisdom which is similar to the Book of Proverbs, but I'd only pick people on that high a level of wisdom and those too are called sinners by the Bible.
Also, at one time there appeared to be an intuitive understanding that God required sacrifice for sin, so that the righteous Gentiles of the Bible such as Job and Noah and his precursors back to Adam made many sacrifices. So did Abraham. It was understood to be necessary and why? Because we're all sinners of course. Then the laws of the sacrifices given through Moses emphasize this necessity. The idea seems to be that nobody can be saved without sacrifice, such as simply on the basis of their attempts to obey the law of God.
Therefore, since sacrifice is no longer a part of any major group's relation to God the only basis on which anyone could be saved is the sacrifice of Christ. And that's probably a whole other thread and Mr Ex and maybe you too might want to argue that that sacrifice could be applied to some who don't follow Jesus.
I tend to conclude that nobody is saved without conscious faith in the sacrifice of Christ. How God deals with any halfway-righteous people who don't know Christ I'm just not going to speculate any more.
2) But the second thing that keeps nagging at me is this strange preoccupation with those who don't know Christ in itself, which is something many people immediately make an issue of, as if it were more important than the fact that in making an issue of it they show that they themselves know the gospel and have rejected it, or if they have accepted it they are complaining about God somehow. If they have rejected it, that puts them in far worse danger than anyone who has never heard it. I mentioned this on the thread somewhere. It's just a strange phenomenon to my mind.
In the case of those who reject the gospel, I have to think the point must be merely to find fault with God, and the gospel itself, and really, therefore, to let THEMSELVES off the hook, they who have heard and rejected the gospel.
But why Christians get so concerned about this I don't know. Surely we know that God's judgments are perfect, so why probe into things that we won't know until Judgment Day? And at that point our own standing in Christ is going to be the most important thing to us. We are addressing an academic point at best in this thread, or an evasion, or at least to my mind it's a puzzling preoccupation for a Christian to have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Monk, posted 05-31-2005 12:28 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Monk, posted 05-31-2005 8:50 AM Faith has replied
 Message 274 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-01-2005 6:39 PM Faith has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 246 of 301 (212779)
05-31-2005 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Monk
05-31-2005 12:28 AM


Re: Salvation
Thanks for the input Monk. You've bascially summed my own position very well and clarified many points in doing so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Monk, posted 05-31-2005 12:28 AM Monk has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 247 of 301 (212797)
05-31-2005 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Faith
05-31-2005 5:16 AM


Re: Salvation
Faith writes:
The idea seems to be that nobody can be saved without sacrifice, such as simply on the basis of their attempts to obey the law of God. Therefore, since sacrifice is no longer a part of any major group's relation to God the only basis on which anyone could be saved is the sacrifice of Christ. How God deals with any halfway-righteous people who don't know Christ I'm just not going to speculate any more.
That’s a good point. It seems to be a contradiction to allow salvation for some through judgment and salvation of others through sacrifice. We can only speculate.
Faith writes:
In the case of those who reject the gospel, I have to think the point must be merely to find fault with God, and the gospel itself, and really, therefore, to let THEMSELVES off the hook, they who have heard and rejected the gospel.
Why Christians get so concerned about this? I don't know. Surely we know that God's judgments are perfect, so why probe into things that we won't know until Judgment Day?
Those who have heard and rejected the Gospel have no excuse. I would pity them as they argue their case before the Lord. As to why Christians get so concerned, well, because it’s interesting. The other reason is that it helps to delve into these issues so that we will have a clearer understanding of scripture and be comfortable discussing questions when they are raised by non-believers.
I know that in my case, this forum forces consideration of topics I would rarely consider otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 05-31-2005 5:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by nator, posted 05-31-2005 9:13 AM Monk has replied
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 05-31-2005 1:46 PM Monk has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 248 of 301 (212805)
05-31-2005 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Monk
05-31-2005 8:50 AM


Re: Salvation
quote:
Those who have heard and rejected the Gospel have no excuse.
Presumably, the all-powerful, all-knowing God made me with a skeptical mind, correct?
If he knew I would be exposed to the Gospels and find them lacking, then he basically created me only to let me burn in hell for eternity.
If this is true, then He is cruel, vindictive, and lacking in morality and is not worthy of my praise.
Not that I want to turn this into a free will thread, but either God is a cruel god or he isn't really all powerful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Monk, posted 05-31-2005 8:50 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Monk, posted 05-31-2005 9:48 AM nator has replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 249 of 301 (212810)
05-31-2005 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by nator
05-31-2005 9:13 AM


Re: Salvation
If he knew I would be exposed to the Gospels and find them lacking, then he basically created me only to let me burn in hell for eternity.
If this is true, then He is cruel, vindictive, and lacking in morality and is not worthy of my praise.
Well, good luck with that argument when your time comes.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by nator, posted 05-31-2005 9:13 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by nator, posted 05-31-2005 10:13 AM Monk has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 250 of 301 (212814)
05-31-2005 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Monk
05-31-2005 9:48 AM


Re: Salvation
Have you considered that you are worshipping an immoral, cruel God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Monk, posted 05-31-2005 9:48 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Monk, posted 05-31-2005 10:22 AM nator has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 251 of 301 (212815)
05-31-2005 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by nator
05-31-2005 10:13 AM


Re: Salvation
Have you considered that you are worshipping an immoral, cruel God?
Nope, not at all.
I do not worship and immoral God. His actions at times may seem to us to be cruel, but who are we to judge?
But if your belief is that God is cruel, vindictive, lacking in morality and is not worthy of praise. Then you're welcome to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by nator, posted 05-31-2005 10:13 AM nator has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 252 of 301 (212826)
05-31-2005 11:54 AM


General reply for all participants...
While I obviously don't agree with schrafinator's perception of God as being cruel, vindictive and otherwise lacking, I still actually think schrafinator raises an interesting point.
For example, is a person condemned for rejecting Christ if the Christian trying to "convert" him has him strung up on a rack, torturing him until he says,"I believe."?
I realize this sounds like a cruel question -- it's probably one of the most cruel examples that I could think of. But it also touches on an issue that I've been praying over very much and is related to this subject: the issue of the Christian's duty to witness, and the method by which they witness their faith, and the amount of love used to do so.
For example, Jude 1:22-24 clearly states:
NIV writes:
Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear - hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.
I do think that the mentality of the message given by the person who witnesses their faith can directly impact how the receiver receives the Gospel message. If the message is broadcast with hatred, then the receivers will most likely reject it.
Likewise, in another example, if we force our faith onto others harshly, and they reject it (like above), the Lord's name is then blasphemed because of our actions -- not theirs.
NIV writes:
As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
Romans 2:24
In these instances, it seems to me that God wouldn't hold accountable someone who rejected the Christian faith. I think he'd be more interested in what the "witness" did to the unbeliever to push them away from Christ.
This is to say, I think that Christ saves people according to the faith that they would have had in him if they had been presented with the gospel message.
In particular, I beleive that Christ, who is by the Scriptures own admission omnipotent in his glorified state, could examine the hearts and minds of any person to see how they "would have acted" if the situation were different.
I personally do not beleive this to be a vague statement which bears no resemblance to the various Judeo-Christian schools of thought. For example, the Scriptures themselves seem to disply a very similar message as follows in Hebrews 4:12-14:
NIV writes:
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. As such, it seems to me that God could easily observe the multitude of different possibilities that lay before each individual human being and make it as if were something that actually happened and we could be held accountable for.
Or, as the Scriptures again say in Romans 4:17:
NIV writes:
As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believedthe God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
In this sense, it seems to me that God is capable of determining the faith that one would have had "as though they were" placed in the right cicumstances.
Consequently, when we look around the world, we do see glimpses of the gospel message everywhere -- even in nature whenever animals engage in traits of self-sacrifice in order to continue their own species.
Whenever some form of sacerdotal system requiring sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins appears, I think this reflects a basic pervasive knowledge of God's desire to reconcile humanity with the sacrifice of his son.
I admit that the knowledge is dim, it is distorted, but it is still there no matter how distorted from God's will it might be.
And, in regards to forgiveness (which is what this whole discussion eventually points to) Christ himself has said something very powerful concerning it. He actually connects love with faith, and points to them as being nearly the same thing: the ability to forgive.
edit: corrected spellings.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-31-2005 12:00 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by jar, posted 05-31-2005 11:59 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 05-31-2005 1:50 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 253 of 301 (212828)
05-31-2005 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
05-31-2005 11:54 AM


Re: General reply for all participants...
Amen Brother. Can I get a 'Hallelujah?'
As my dear Mom used to say, "Your actions speak louder than words."

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-31-2005 11:54 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-02-2005 2:23 PM jar has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 254 of 301 (212848)
05-31-2005 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Monk
05-31-2005 8:50 AM


Re: Salvation
Why Christians get so concerned about this? I don't know. Surely we know that God's judgments are perfect, so why probe into things that we won't know until Judgment Day?
Those who have heard and rejected the Gospel have no excuse. I would pity them as they argue their case before the Lord. As to why Christians get so concerned, well, because it’s interesting. The other reason is that it helps to delve into these issues so that we will have a clearer understanding of scripture and be comfortable discussing questions when they are raised by non-believers.
I know that in my case, this forum forces consideration of topics I would rarely consider otherwise.
All true, and yet sometimes there seems to be an implicit discontent with the gospel in it, a criticism of God's methods that puts me on edge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Monk, posted 05-31-2005 8:50 AM Monk has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 255 of 301 (212851)
05-31-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
05-31-2005 11:54 AM


Re: Harsh methods or simple truth?
We are SO given to torturing people on the rack these days, Mr. Ex. As a witness tool yet.
I beg to differ with your overall point. I would say it's quite clear that the usual objection to the gospel we are all familiar with is based strictly on the Biblical revelation itself, and completely independent of the manner of witnessing, which may in fact be quite gentle. Schrafinator is not complaining about witnessing methods but about the character of God as presented in the Bible, which is what we are discussing, the God who saves whom He will. She finds this God to be cruel, not the methods of witnessing about Him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-31-2005 11:54 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-31-2005 3:09 PM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024