DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: 7StringedBeast on August 10, 2010, 03:22:40 PM
-
Ok so this is an interesting thing I just thought of. If Jesus didn't show up till a certain time to start Christianity. And if the Bible didn't exist until a certain time, I guess everyone who was born and died before then just automatically went to hell because the only way to heaven is through Jesus? Can anyone religious comment on this? How does the Bible account for all the people who existed before the time of the bible. Were they just screwed over from the beginning?
-
good question. the covenant of Jesus refers to his redeeming blood and how "in his forebearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (rom 3:23-24).
in other words, since the messiah was promised from the time of the very first sin (adam and eve), God overlooked the sins of man in anticipation of the time when his own blood would provide atonement
hope that helps
-
Ok so this is an interesting thing I just thought of. If Jesus didn't show up till a certain time to start Christianity. And if the Bible didn't exist until a certain time, I guess everyone who was born and died before then just automatically went to hell because the only way to heaven is through Jesus? Can anyone religious comment on this? How does the Bible account for all the people who existed before the time of the bible. Were they just screwed over from the beginning?
No. From another thread:
Before answering the question directly, a few notes on hell in general. The context of what few Biblical descriptions there are seem to be symbolic rather than literal descriptions, best I can tell. I personally don't believe there is a literal description, so I don't believe we can truly know what it is like. But the universal theme is that it is a place of eternal torment for all who have sinned (including Satan; the image of Satan being in control in hell is not Biblical at all; he is to be punished there as well). There is no joy or happiness there whatsoever.
The short version of who is going there and who isn't is this: God set out the rules for mankind from the beginning. Those who follow the rules perfectly are not subject to eternal punishment. But the penalty for sinning is eternal punishment. God being completely just must enforce this punishment. It is not a punishment because mankind is inherently evil, as was suggested in a post above, but because each of us has in fact sinned.
The flip side of that is that while God is 100% just, he is also 100% merciful and offers the free gift of salvation from that punishment for any who accept that Jesus paid the price that anyone who sins must pay (prior to Jesus paying that price, part of the faith that people were asked to have is that God had already set in place the plan where sins would eventually be paid for; as the saying goes, once Jesus paid the price, it was not only for those who would believe in the future, but also for those who had believed in the past--but that's a subject for another thread if people want to dig deeper into this idea). It is a free gift that is given for all, and all we must do is accept the gift.
Moving on to answer the question (again, this is the short version), as Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." (John 14:6) In other words, Jesus is the only way to be saved from Hell. As far as what we must do to accept that salvation, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)
Again, that's the short version and is presented to be informative, not persuasive. But, EJ, you can read that and draw your own conclusions. My personal wish is that everyone I come into contact with choose to avoid Hell. But I am under no delusion that everyone will. We're all free to make our own choices in that regard, so that's fine.
EDIT: ninja'd by Yesh! :reapsta:
-
good question. the covenant of Jesus refers to his redeeming blood and how "in his forebearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (rom 3:23-24).
in other words, since the messiah was promised from the time of the very first sin (adam and eve), God overlooked the sins of man in anticipation of the time when his own blood would provide atonement
hope that helps
Yeah that pretty much answers my question.
My reaction on that is "big time cover up" though lol. But that's just my own personal opinion on the bible.
-
I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.
rumborak
-
I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.
rumborak
I think it was the gods plurality being used in "made man in our image" and the whole spirit of god brushing over the waters. That's it as far as I know.
-
big time cover up for sure... :lol (especially me)
I would add, though, that it is easy to see God from a false perspective. for many, God is tyrannical judge who can't wait to cast as many as possible into hell.
Instead, the picture of the verse I quoted (where he is referred to as "just and the justifier") is of a court scene where a father is the judge and his son has committed a crime. as much as he wants to overlook the son's sin, it would not be just and people would come out of the woodwork opposing the judge as partial and unfair. the judge's deepest desire is to forgive the son for his crime, but justice does not allow it. However, if the judge (not realistic, of course in our courts) decides to serve the son's sentence himself, he can still be just and be the justifier and his son can escape the deserved punishment of his crime.
this is a more accurate picture of God in relation to his creation
-
I raised a similar question in a philosophy class many years ago, and never did get a reasonable answer. What about the Indians (native Americans)? They existed after Christ, yet had no conceivable means of knowing the rules. Is there a loophole for them as well?
-
I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.
rumborak
I think it was the gods plurality being used in "made man in our image" and the whole spirit of god brushing over the waters. That's it as far as I know.
no, I was thinking specifically of Gen 3:15. it is a messianic passage, so it doesn't refer to Jesus unless Jesus is the messiah (which of course I believe he is).
-
I raised a similar question in a philosophy class many years ago, and never did get a reasonable answer. What about the Indians (native Americans)? They existed after Christ, yet had no conceivable means of knowing the rules. Is there a loophole for them as well?
This is a good point as well. Bothers me. I guess if I believed in heaven, I would have to believe in many paths to get there. Christianity is way too close minded for me.
-
As far as I can remember, the only (or, well, the best. You've got some BS answers like the Left Behind books that say "everyone has been exposed to God's way somehow, they just chose not to follow) answer I've really seen for that question is "God is Just and will judge them fairly."
I don't think it's ever answered directly in the Bible. It's one of those "if you believe X, then Y makes sense" things.
-
I raised a similar question in a philosophy class many years ago, and never did get a reasonable answer. What about the Indians (native Americans)? They existed after Christ, yet had no conceivable means of knowing the rules. Is there a loophole for them as well?
the bible does not refer to any "loopholes," but it does consistently refer to "judgment day." It doesn't take much in this metaphor to recognize that the judge will make judgments on that day. In other words, he will take into consideration all circumstances. no matter what one thinks on this issue, the bottom line is that whatever he chooses to do will be right and just.
-
I raised a similar question in a philosophy class many years ago, and never did get a reasonable answer. What about the Indians (native Americans)? They existed after Christ, yet had no conceivable means of knowing the rules. Is there a loophole for them as well?
the bible does not refer to any "loopholes," but it does consistently refer to "judgment day." It doesn't take much in this metaphor to recognize that the judge will make judgments on that day. In other words, he will take into consideration all circumstances. no matter what one thinks on this issue, the bottom line is that whatever he chooses to do will be right and just.
But Judgement day has never come. They all died before Judgement day. I dunno, I'm not buying it, personally.
-
I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.
rumborak
I think it was the gods plurality being used in "made man in our image" and the whole spirit of god brushing over the waters. That's it as far as I know.
no, I was thinking specifically of Gen 3:15. it is a messianic passage, so it doesn't refer to Jesus unless Jesus is the messiah (which of course I believe he is).
Even that I don't see really.
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."
How is that messianic? Doesn't that verse just plain say "you will love this woman as much as you will hate her, and your in-laws will be a cause of strife"?
And the whole chapter is about cursing Adam and Eve for their downfall. I really don't see how that relates to a Messiah. At all.
rumborak
-
he is actually cursing the serpent in that reference rather than adam and eve
-
Sorry, but I'm not seeing what that has to to with Jesus. Isn't it basically saying "humans and snakes don't get along now"?
-
Sorry, but I'm not seeing what that has to to with Jesus. Isn't it basically saying "humans and snakes don't get along now"?
This. No one ever thought of this verse as Messianic until Christians started saying it was. There is nothing there.
-
No one ever thought of this verse as Messianic until Christians started saying it was.
Well, of course. That was true of a lot of prophecy. A good many Jews didn't get Isaiah 53 at all, for example, and had no idea what it referred to. If the messiah was a king and had all these majestic characteristics, what is this random passage about a suffering servant and what do they have to do with anything? It wasn't until Jesus fullfilled the prophecies that they made sense and the lightbulb went off making people go, "Oh, that's what that means!"
-
Sorry, Gen 3:15 really has no light bulb in sight that could go off. God is talking to a snake; there is no Messiah anywhere in there.
rumborak
-
I'm no biblical scholar, nor am I am I even moderately well-versed in scripture, but I have a hard time swallowing that belief in Jesus alone is what will save people on Judgment Day, if such a day will even ever come. God knows your intentions, and understands the hearts of the people, and will be able to tell the upright from the rest.
That's not to say there's no benefit in spreading the word, though. I'd encourage even people of little faith (like myself sometimes) to continue reading the Gospel as a way of determining what God wants you to be, even if the answer doesn't seem to be very clear most of the time.
-
No one ever thought of this verse as Messianic until Christians started saying it was.
Well, of course. That was true of a lot of prophecy. A good many Jews didn't get Isaiah 53 at all, for example, and had no idea what it referred to. If the messiah was a king and had all these majestic characteristics, what is this random passage about a suffering servant and what do they have to do with anything? It wasn't until Jesus fullfilled the prophecies that they made sense and the lightbulb went off making people go, "Oh, that's what that means!"
I don't think that is a messianic prophecy either.
But hey, it takes all kinds.
-
No one ever thought of this verse as Messianic until Christians started saying it was.
Well, of course. That was true of a lot of prophecy. A good many Jews didn't get Isaiah 53 at all, for example, and had no idea what it referred to. If the messiah was a king and had all these majestic characteristics, what is this random passage about a suffering servant and what do they have to do with anything? It wasn't until Jesus fullfilled the prophecies that they made sense and the lightbulb went off making people go, "Oh, that's what that means!"
I don't think that is a messianic prophecy either.
But hey, it takes all kinds.
just out of curiousity, are there any messianic prophecies that you see in scriptures?
-
No one ever thought of this verse as Messianic until Christians started saying it was.
Well, of course. That was true of a lot of prophecy. A good many Jews didn't get Isaiah 53 at all, for example, and had no idea what it referred to. If the messiah was a king and had all these majestic characteristics, what is this random passage about a suffering servant and what do they have to do with anything? It wasn't until Jesus fullfilled the prophecies that they made sense and the lightbulb went off making people go, "Oh, that's what that means!"
I don't think that is a messianic prophecy either.
But hey, it takes all kinds.
just out of curiousity, are there any messianic prophecies that you see in scriptures?
I don't know. There may be some legitimate ones. But I think most of the ones that Christians hold to be pointing to Jesus aren't really. And I don't think it was the job of the prophets to tell the future - that isn't what classical Hebrew prophecy entailed. They spoke for God about, for, and to the people of their times, to try to head them in the right direction. That's my opinion.
-
I raised a similar question in a philosophy class many years ago, and never did get a reasonable answer. What about the Indians (native Americans)? They existed after Christ, yet had no conceivable means of knowing the rules. Is there a loophole for them as well?
the bible does not refer to any "loopholes," but it does consistently refer to "judgment day." It doesn't take much in this metaphor to recognize that the judge will make judgments on that day. In other words, he will take into consideration all circumstances. no matter what one thinks on this issue, the bottom line is that whatever he chooses to do will be right and just.
So if under the circumstance that people never hear about Jesus in the first place, God makes them a special deal and lets them into heaven anyway? In that case, wouldn't it be a better idea to never tell anyone about Christianity so that they get the same deal?
I mean, obviously someone who hears about Jesus and for one reason or another doesn't get "born again" will go directly to hell. So it might have been better for that person to never hear the message at all.
This is something that's bothered me for a while actually.
-
It's definitely peculiar. With Christianity, you're best off not having heard of it.
rumborak
-
So if under the circumstance that people never hear about Jesus in the first place, God makes them a special deal and lets them into heaven anyway? In that case, wouldn't it be a better idea to never tell anyone about Christianity so that they get the same deal?
I mean, obviously someone who hears about Jesus and for one reason or another doesn't get "born again" will go directly to hell. So it might have been better for that person to never hear the message at all.
I think what yesh and others are saying is that God is just regardless of the individual's circumstances. So the guy who's never heard of Jesus doesn't automatically get the "special deal". He's "judged according to his deeds", and according to his individual situation and his life. Similarly, for example, if a guy heard about Jesus during his lifetime, but maybe he grew up in a strict, uniform Islamic society, God would take into account those cultural biases and the difficulty one would have in overcoming them. That's what I gather from their posts, anyway.
And although the sentence I bolded is definitely a point of contention within Christianity, there is certainly a lot of stuff in the NT that suggests that once you believe, you have infinitely more "responsibility" and the consequences for losing your belief, etc., are dire. Which kinda brings me to rumborak's conclusion. Suddenly being born into a Christian family is sounding like more of a negative than a positive, simply because you're being started off with that belief before you have the opportunity to choose or reject it.
-J
-
Well if god is judging those people based on their deeds, that means 1 of 2 things.
1. They all go to hell anyway, because only the sinless get into heaven
2. The entire idea of christianity is moot.
-
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their deeds.
Rev 20:13
-J
-
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their deeds.
Rev 20:13
-J
So then unless accepting jesus is the ultimate deed...what's the point of christianity? And if accepting jesus is the deal breaker, what's the point of judging them on anything else?
-
So if under the circumstance that people never hear about Jesus in the first place, God makes them a special deal and lets them into heaven anyway? In that case, wouldn't it be a better idea to never tell anyone about Christianity so that they get the same deal?
I mean, obviously someone who hears about Jesus and for one reason or another doesn't get "born again" will go directly to hell. So it might have been better for that person to never hear the message at all.
I think what yesh and others are saying is that God is just regardless of the individual's circumstances. So the guy who's never heard of Jesus doesn't automatically get the "special deal". He's "judged according to his deeds", and according to his individual situation and his life. Similarly, for example, if a guy heard about Jesus during his lifetime, but maybe he grew up in a strict, uniform Islamic society, God would take into account those cultural biases and the difficulty one would have in overcoming them. That's what I gather from their posts, anyway.
But that doesn't jibe at all with the theological concept of "salvation through faith and not deeds".
-
:lol
I have to admit I never thought of that point...it is pretty good to be honest
the reality, though, is that my suggestion about judgment day is merely that. Scripture does not tell us what will happen to those who have not heard. If anything, to the contrary, it presupposes a responsibility to make sure they do hear.
I am merely applying my human sense of justice to what makes sense, but as I stated before, one thing is for sure...whatever God does, it will be right
-
Doesn't that seem a bit like a cop-out to you though? I don't want to be rude, but it's not the best argument when it comes to someone's eternal soul going to heaven or hell.
-
whatever God does, it will be right
This, this is EXACTLY the statement that turns me away from any religious discussions. Defenders of religion always have this card which is impossible to beat. How can one have a logical debate if the very foundation of ones knowledge rests in a belief system which is built on one's own personal, spiritual, experiences.
Doesn't concern you yeshua, that this is the exact argument that other religions use? In all senses of reason and logic, why does your god do right as apposed to others? Why does your god do wrong according to others? There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to pick your god over the others.
-
Doesn't that seem a bit like a cop-out to you though? I don't want to be rude, but it's not the best argument when it comes to someone's eternal soul going to heaven or hell.
are you talking about the line referenced by soundgarden?
I wasn't meaning it in the sense of my god over your god...I only mean it in the sense that by defintion God is God. I know a lot of people who worry about questions like these as if their worrying is going to "help" God make the right decision. My point is only that if God is really God, he is pretty capable of doing what is best/right without our help. If he indeed created the vast expanse of the universe, I don't think he is incapable of understanding the problems that plague us
-
I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.
rumborak
If you overanalyze the Bible long enough you'll realize it's a concept album.
-
I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.
rumborak
If you overanalyze the Bible long enough you'll realize it's a concept album.
POTY haha love this.
-
I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.
rumborak
If you overanalyze the Bible long enough you'll realize it's a concept album.
POTY haha love this.
genius on so many levels :lol
-
So if under the circumstance that people never hear about Jesus in the first place, God makes them a special deal and lets them into heaven anyway? In that case, wouldn't it be a better idea to never tell anyone about Christianity so that they get the same deal?
I mean, obviously someone who hears about Jesus and for one reason or another doesn't get "born again" will go directly to hell. So it might have been better for that person to never hear the message at all.
I think what yesh and others are saying is that God is just regardless of the individual's circumstances. So the guy who's never heard of Jesus doesn't automatically get the "special deal". He's "judged according to his deeds", and according to his individual situation and his life. Similarly, for example, if a guy heard about Jesus during his lifetime, but maybe he grew up in a strict, uniform Islamic society, God would take into account those cultural biases and the difficulty one would have in overcoming them. That's what I gather from their posts, anyway.
But that doesn't jibe at all with the theological concept of "salvation through faith and not deeds".
Even though they don't "earn" it, deeds (works) are still a necessary part of biblical faith, and thus salvation, as is made very clear in the NT. This comes up in practically every thread about Christianity, and the fundamentalist notion of "absolute faith alone" is always debunked (not sure that is what you were getting at).
Either way, I'm with you in being skeptical of all this. I was just presenting a response to these questions that I've seen many times before.
If you overanalyze the Bible long enough you'll realize it's a concept album.
Brilliant. :rollin
-J
-
Doesn't that seem a bit like a cop-out to you though? I don't want to be rude, but it's not the best argument when it comes to someone's eternal soul going to heaven or hell.
are you talking about the line referenced by soundgarden?
I wasn't meaning it in the sense of my god over your god...I only mean it in the sense that by defintion God is God. I know a lot of people who worry about questions like these as if their worrying is going to "help" God make the right decision. My point is only that if God is really God, he is pretty capable of doing what is best/right without our help. If he indeed created the vast expanse of the universe, I don't think he is incapable of understanding the problems that plague us
My objection is with the "whatever God does is right" logic, if indeed people in the jungles of South America who have no idea what Christianity is or who Jesus was will go to hell for eternity despite the fact that they never even had the opportunity to be "born again". And if they do have a means of going to heaven despite never accepting Jesus as their personal saviour, that's a pretty odd loophole in the "salvation by faith alone" doctrine of evangelical Christian belief.
"Whatever God does is right" isn't really an intellectually satisfying answer, that's all.
Even though they don't "earn" it, deeds (works) are still a necessary part of biblical faith, and thus salvation, as is made very clear in the NT. This comes up in practically every thread about Christianity, and the fundamentalist notion of "absolute faith alone" is always debunked (not sure that is what you were getting at).
That's not evangelical doctrine as I understand it. You can live a life of crime and accept Christ on your deathbed and get into heaven. No "good deeds" are required for admission into heaven, as we're all sinful because of Adam, and Jesus' sacrifice "covers us" from God's judgment resulting from that sin.
-
I remember looking up at some point the section where Jesus was supposedly mentioned in Genesis, and seriously scratching my head at how one could possibly interpret it as such.
rumborak
If you overanalyze the Bible long enough you'll realize it's a concept album.
More like watching The Wizard of Oz and listening to Dark Side of the Moon.
-
That's not evangelical doctrine as I understand it. You can live a life of crime and accept Christ on your deathbed and get into heaven. No "good deeds" are required for admission into heaven, as we're all sinful because of Adam, and Jesus' sacrifice "covers us" from God's judgment resulting from that sin.
Damn, I want THAT salvation! But no, that's far from reality. That's Southern Right Wing Bible Belt Fundamentalist Christianity. So many Christians and Non-Christians alike view salvation as a button that, when pressed, immediately admits you into heaven. It's like heaven is a TV, and all you have to do is turn it on. This is probably the main reason why most middle class Christians fail at perpetuating an even semi-correct version of the Gospel laid down by Jesus.
The book of James pretty much outlines it well, that faith and good works aren't more important than the other, they are EXPRESSIONS of our new found life in Jesus. It says "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder!" (James 2:17), so just believing in the power of God is not enough either.
If I were going to strip down Christianity to what it's most basic foundation is (and by the way, Christianity is not a simple belief, yet many want to insist that it is, hence the "button" way of thought) a conscious choice brought about by the purity and Spirit of Jesus Christ. Because of our redemption through his blood, we can walk the Earth with a sense of renewal. We are to become "new men" in Christ, not just the same person with a new title slapped on the front.
Faith and good works are expressions of this newfound self, like the building blocks to the foundation that Christ had laid down for us.
-
That still doesn't mean a deathbed conversion wouldn't be enough, though. Also, the Bible's pretty clear that works alone aren't enough, which still means people who haven't ever heard of Jesus or Christianity will not go to heaven.
-
The book of James pretty much outlines it well, that faith and good works aren't more important than the other, they are EXPRESSIONS of our new found life in Jesus. It says "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder!" (James 2:17), so just believing in the power of God is not enough either.
For that particular verse, I like the Lee Ermey Version: "You believe in God? Good for you! So do the demons, ya' jack wagon! *throws tissue box in disgust*"
-
That's not evangelical doctrine as I understand it. You can live a life of crime and accept Christ on your deathbed and get into heaven. No "good deeds" are required for admission into heaven, as we're all sinful because of Adam, and Jesus' sacrifice "covers us" from God's judgment resulting from that sin.
Damn, I want THAT salvation! But no, that's far from reality. That's Southern Right Wing Bible Belt Fundamentalist Christianity. So many Christians and Non-Christians alike view salvation as a button that, when pressed, immediately admits you into heaven. It's like heaven is a TV, and all you have to do is turn it on. This is probably the main reason why most middle class Christians fail at perpetuating an even semi-correct version of the Gospel laid down by Jesus.
The book of James pretty much outlines it well, that faith and good works aren't more important than the other, they are EXPRESSIONS of our new found life in Jesus. It says "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder!" (James 2:17), so just believing in the power of God is not enough either.
If I were going to strip down Christianity to what it's most basic foundation is (and by the way, Christianity is not a simple belief, yet many want to insist that it is, hence the "button" way of thought) a conscious choice brought about by the purity and Spirit of Jesus Christ. Because of our redemption through his blood, we can walk the Earth with a sense of renewal. We are to become "new men" in Christ, not just the same person with a new title slapped on the front.
Faith and good works are expressions of this newfound self, like the building blocks to the foundation that Christ had laid down for us.
Good post.
That still doesn't mean a deathbed conversion wouldn't be enough, though. Also, the Bible's pretty clear that works alone aren't enough, which still means people who haven't ever heard of Jesus or Christianity will not go to heaven.
This is true too, I think, except possibly the bolded. Remaining within the umbrella of what is usually considered "Christianity", you could say that the deathbed conversion was an act of faith--or a "work"--itself, or that God's infinite mercy allows him to make exceptions based on individual circumstances, or a number of other "rationalizations".
For that particular verse, I like the Lee Ermey Version: "You believe in God? Good for you! So do the demons, ya' jack wagon! *throws tissue box in disgust*"
:lol
-J
-
That still doesn't mean a deathbed conversion wouldn't be enough, though. Also, the Bible's pretty clear that works alone aren't enough, which still means people who haven't ever heard of Jesus or Christianity will not go to heaven.
This is true too, I think, except possibly the bolded. Remaining within the umbrella of what is usually considered "Christianity", you could say that the deathbed conversion was an act of faith--or a "work"--itself, or that God's infinite mercy allows him to make exceptions based on individual circumstances, or a number of other "rationalizations".
I'm sorry, but that still doesn't seem right to me. God is being inconsistent with his judgment in that instance. Either people are condemned to Hell without Jesus or they aren't. Otherwise we have to throw out that central aspect of Christian doctrine.
-
The problem lies with The Bible, it is inconsistent and contradictory in many aspects of it's stances. It is also many times over morally illogical in many of these stances, there is no real way to reconcile it without sending some innocent to the fiery pit. To get around this, many blanket the Bible with there own morality and try to twist what it says so they don't have to think or say "you are going to hell"
Which I think was demonstrated in the thread I made entitled "Am I going to Hell?". Some laid out their beliefs and what is stated within the dogma and would not comment any further, preferring that I draw my own conclusions. Which you know what, I didn't really mind it was merely people being nice and trying not to offend.
Here are your choices in the matter of Heaven and Hell
1. "Only those whom accept Jesus as their savoir are saved"; this is a malevolent God.
Billions burn for mere ignorance and not having the ability to not be ignorant. This is what the Bible says it is morally unjust and therefore would be the workings of an unjust God, which is against what the Bible says.
2. "Those who are good get into heaven anyway"; this is the fair God.
Makes Christianity obsolete and redundant, not only does it invalidate the Bible but there is no reason to go to church, pray or spread the word. Just be a good moral person. You could argue that spreading the word of God will make more better people, I would disagree. Spreading the word that being a good person will get you into heaven would be the adequate route. Not using the Bible at all would be preferred, as it (as mentioned above and the reason this thread exists) is a riddle with non-sense and contradictions.
3. "Those who are expose to Christianity must get into heaven through big JC, those who don't get into heaven on good behavior."; this is the jerk God.
Those who have the misfortune of being exposed to Christianity have to spend many hours thanking and praising God. These many hours could be spent doing something useful, like washing their car or jerking off. Chances are these Christians are already good people and do good things, btw most of us are. Now all of a sudden they have to go to Church every Sunday (sometimes Wednesdays too!!), praise and thank God for any measly thing that drops by in that persons favor.
All the while the good person without knowing Christianity gets in on being themselves. Now being a Christian does have it's pros'; for instance if you do something bad you can be forgiven and all those hour of praying will probably tip the scales too. Now the non-Christian is in a slightly worse sin-ario (see what I did there?), as it stands there was no one for the non-Christian to ask forgiveness from (well unless you count the one they committed the crime against. YAY for vicarious redemption! You don't have to face the one you wronged!). So logically the pros and cons of the non-Christians life will be weighed, unless there is some of that God knows your heart stuff in there.
So one way the Christian is at the disadvantage the other they have the advantage, either way it is unfair.
4. "God/gods do not exist and neither does an afterlife"; well you get the idea.
-
That still doesn't mean a deathbed conversion wouldn't be enough, though. Also, the Bible's pretty clear that works alone aren't enough, which still means people who haven't ever heard of Jesus or Christianity will not go to heaven.
This is true too, I think, except possibly the bolded. Remaining within the umbrella of what is usually considered "Christianity", you could say that the deathbed conversion was an act of faith--or a "work"--itself, or that God's infinite mercy allows him to make exceptions based on individual circumstances, or a number of other "rationalizations".
I'm sorry, but that still doesn't seem right to me. God is being inconsistent with his judgment in that instance. Either people are condemned to Hell without Jesus or they aren't. Otherwise we have to throw out that central aspect of Christian doctrine.
??? God is not being inconsistent in this scenario. He is adjusting for inconsistent circumstances. An omnipotent god knows there are those who are never properly exposed to Jesus or his teachings before death. A just god knows that it is not just for some to be judged differently than others. The Christian God is said to be both omnipotent and just. I don't buy what I'm arguing, but it's a hell of a lot more reasonable (not to mention more consistent with basic Christian theology) than a God who is powerless to level the cosmic playing field for his weak creations that he professes to love.
Now that brings up the notion of what constitutes being "properly exposed" (my words) to Jesus. Does it apply to every person who has heard the name "Jesus" uttered, even in passing? Or does it stretch to include (for example) the person who is nominally brought up a Christian but whose parents are terrible examples and cause him to leave the church forever without looking back?
-J
-
You know the central doctrine of evangelical Christianity is that we are condemned to hell unless we are "born again" by accepting Jesus Christ as our savior, right? This is because without being cleansed spiritually by Jesus' sacrifice, we are ALL too sinful to enter heaven. If God is making even one exception to this rule, he is being inconsistent in his judgment, and is also being inconsistent with his holiness, since he is too holy to allow any sin into his presence (hence the need for Jesus' sacrificial atonement). If someone has not accepted Jesus Christ and been "born again", they are still stained by sin, and thus shouldn't be able to even enter into God's presence.
I'm not saying I agree with any of this, I'm just regurgitating evangelical Christian doctrine as I was taught it growing up and in college.
-
While I think the bible is pretty clear about needing Jesus for salvation, the details are left quite vague. Exactly how is one "born again", or "cleansed spiritually by Jesus' sacrifice"? Is it possible that there could be more than one way that this can occur? At the very least, there's no biblical support for the current evangelical practice of having some emotional experience, saying a quick prayer, "accepting Jesus into your heart" (whatever that means), and then bam, you're born again.
Do you not agree with me regarding the attributes of the Christian God as generally understood (perfectly omniscient, just, merciful, etc)?
-J
-
Certainly, I just think the "perfectly just" part doesn't make sense if God is granting exceptions, that's all. Under that logic, if someone lives a perfectly good life, they're better off never hearing about Jesus and Christianity so they get that special exception.
-
Yeah I understand that. But I mean, using my own concept of "justice", I'd view it as unjust for God to give some people massive advantages while hanging others out to dry (which is essentially what happens if his rules mean and apply the way you've said they do). Instead of saying some people get "special exceptions", I'd say that God would be fairly judging each individual--because each person is different and lives in different circumstances--rather than going "screw it" and trying to use a huge blanket of absolute cut-offs.
-J
-
If you overanalyze the Bible long enough you'll realize it's a concept album.
"Scenes from a Prophecy" LOL
-
If you overanalyze the Bible long enough you'll realize it's a concept album.
"Scenes from a Prophecy" LOL
Long wait, totally worth it.
-
LOL!
-
Hell is a place without God. Christ as the Son of God came to fulfill the law. He didn't just open up heaven at that point like some coffee shop. ;) Jews also believe in Heaven. Christ also as a Divine Person as Christians believe make him one and the same as God (don't ask me to go into this as this is literally a 4 year degree you are asking me to explain) thus Christ was there from the beginning. Again the Gloria helps with this, "Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it was, is now and ever shall be". Thus explaining, everything already was, still is and will continue. Remember God can and never will change. God was, is and will continue to be the exact same being. Therefore this whole notion that people before Christ went to Hell is simply just another total misunderstanding.
-
That's not evangelical doctrine as I understand it. You can live a life of crime and accept Christ on your deathbed and get into heaven. No "good deeds" are required for admission into heaven, as we're all sinful because of Adam, and Jesus' sacrifice "covers us" from God's judgment resulting from that sin.
A deathbed confession should be "real" when it comes to the confession. That is, if you truly ask for forgiveness for the life you led, that forgiveness is there. This becomes a concept not many people are willing to like because that means I can live a immoral life then seconds before I die go, "oops. forgive me". Believe me, it's never this easy. Heaven is simply a willingness to accept the light of God. We truly believe that God brings into heaven that which can only be good as God is that which is only good. There is a full proof of this from Thomas Aquinas if people want to druge through middle ages philosophy which is still just as good if not better than modern philosophy. this is not to say that those who are immoral but move towards the light get thrown into hell, only those who forgo the light.
-
A deathbed confession will mean nothing without repentance. Repentance can't happen without God's grace.
Pre Jesus there were God's elect and there were not. Ante Jesus the same principal applied. I'm not sure I'll make a full post at the moment, but let's see how it goes.
There's a problem these days where there is an unbiblical idea that Salvation is the work of the individual. Salvation is a work Of God. Man inherited sin from Adam and passed it down hereditarily. Jesus overpowered sin and through his defeat of Sin, God see's those who were elect through Jesus after his defeat of sin so they lookk like they no longer have sin.
Because humanity inherited the original sin through Adam it encompassed their will. Thus every human's will is inclined to sin. If a human is inclined to sin by definition they cannot choose to save themself. This is what Paul, Augustine and Calvin all said. Therefore God by grace intervenes and chooses some to be saved. There were plenty of people saved in the OT. There were alot more who weren't but even some who weren't Israelites were saved. Can you think of any?
-
A deathbed confession will mean nothing without repentance. Repentance can't happen without God's grace.
Pre Jesus there were God's elect and there were not. Ante Jesus the same principal applied. I'm not sure I'll make a full post at the moment, but let's see how it goes.
There's a problem these days where there is an unbiblical idea that Salvation is the work of the individual. Salvation is a work Of God. Man inherited sin from Adam and passed it down hereditarily. Jesus overpowered sin and through his defeat of Sin, God see's those who were elect through Jesus after his defeat of sin so they lookk like they no longer have sin.
Because humanity inherited the original sin through Adam it encompassed their will. Thus every human's will is inclined to sin. If a human is inclined to sin by definition they cannot choose to save themself. This is what Paul, Augustine and Calvin all said. Therefore God by grace intervenes and chooses some to be saved. There were plenty of people saved in the OT. There were alot more who weren't but even some who weren't Israelites were saved. Can you think of any?
These come from the words of a non-believer, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But I thought the major selling point of Christianity was "Anybody can be saved!" If only a select number are saved regardless (As your post seems to imply), then what is the point of Mr. Joe being a Christian only to find out that he was passed over? He might as well have done whatever he damn well pleased and had some fun in his life if he was going to go to hell anyway.
-
Seventh Son, you are correct. Philawallafox is wrong on that count. He is correct in his point about salvation being the work of God, but his post completely falls apart after that (no wonder if he is relying on Augustine and Calvin, who both twisted Paul's writings beyond recognition). Mankind in no way "inherited sin." Each person individually chooses to sin and is not separated from God until he or she chooses to do so. (e.g. "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." -Ezekiel 18:20) The Bible teaches that while salvation is indeed the work of God, the work of man is to accept that salvation, and inidividually it is up to each and every person to decide whether to accept that salvation. We each individually have the ability and the freedom to do so.
-
I'm not well versed in Augustine but I had a hearty laugh when he mentioned Calvin. :lol
-
Both had some really great ideas, but went way too far in promoting their own ideas about what they thought the Bible should say instead of looking at what it actually does say.
-
I'm not well versed in Augustine but I had a hearty laugh when he mentioned Calvin. :lol
So did I.
Paul, Augustine and Calvin
That's like saying Abraham Lincoln, the Dalai Lama, and Snooki.
-J
-
I'm not well versed in Augustine but I had a hearty laugh when he mentioned Calvin. :lol
So did I.
Paul, Augustine and Calvin
That's like saying Abraham Lincoln, the Dalai Lama, and Snooki.
-J
well it's not really. I was demonstrating linearity. Calvin was one of the leading pastors of the Protestant Reformation. you'll find the Puritans in line with him along with John Whitefield, John Knox in scotland, The Westminster Divines, The first great awakening. The list goes on.
Calvin was in line with Augustine is known by Roman Catholics as the Doctor of Grace. If you look at his writings against the semi pelagians you'll see that he gives a progression of salvation by faith, faith from grace, grace by predestination.
In that work He mostly quotes Paul feel free to refute me but do it after actually reading his work. "On the Predestination of the saints" https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm. Paul uses strong language of election and Predestination. I don't know how you can say that that isn't what Paul teaches.
-
I didn't intend to dispute your claim, it just looked funny to see him mentioned in such company. :biggrin: I've read Calvin, and of course he's arguably the most influential of the Protestant Reformers. And in this case, I do agree that in some ways he echoes Paul's language when discussing "the elect", etc.
But the entire issue of predestination becomes a matter of semantics when viewed in light of an omniscient God.
-J
-
I didn't intend to dispute your claim, it just looked funny to see him mentioned in such company. :biggrin: I've read Calvin, and of course he's arguably the most influential of the Protestant Reformers. And in this case, I do agree that in some ways he echoes Paul's language when discussing "the elect", etc.
But the entire issue of predestination becomes a matter of semantics when viewed in light of an omniscient God.
-J
i've never heard that before. Why do you say that?
-
Because of the topic we're running into the ground in the other thread. God knowing who will follow him and who will not does not constitute "predestination". Easily the dumbest, most pointless, and most unnecessarily convoluted thing Calvin wrote about.
-J
-
Because of the topic we're running into the ground in the other thread. God knowing who will follow him and who will not does not constitute "predestination". Easily the dumbest, most pointless, and most unnecessarily convoluted thing Calvin wrote about.
-J
well yeah. But Calvin didn't write about that. Arminius did.
-
They both did. Are you sure you've read Calvin? :lol
-J
-
They both did. Are you sure you've read Calvin? :lol
-J
I'm sure i haven't. however I've read Augustine and the Bible. I'll get to Calvin soon. In the mean time Calvin didn't teach that foreknowkedge is predestination.
Can I assume by inference that you've read Calvin?
Whether I can or not, I will. why don't you go and quote him to me where he says that foreknowledge is what the bible means when it says predestination. If you can prove it to me i'll give you a cookie.
-
??? He doesn't say that, he's practically on the opposite end of the spectrum. That was my point.
Calvin was a pretty crappy philosopher, among other things. It's impossible to reconcile free will with the Calvinist notion of hardline predestination.
-J
-
??? He doesn't say that, he's practically on the opposite end of the spectrum. That was my point.
Calvin was a pretty crappy philosopher, among other things. It's impossible to reconcile free will with the Calvinist notion of hardline predestination.
-J
I've never tried. We humans don't have a free will.
Also you still haven't given me proofs. Did you actually read Calvin?
-
I've never tried. We humans don't have a free will.
What? Good lord dude, I have no clue what you're trying to argue or why. If you want to discuss something, maybe start by formulating a simple argument so we're all not trying desperately to follow some inane train of "logic". And I use that term loosely.
Also you still haven't given me proofs. Did you actually read Calvin?
::)
I have no idea what you mean by "proofs", but here's a Calvin quote on predestination.
"We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or death."
-J
-
I've never tried. We humans don't have a free will.
What? Good lord dude, I have no clue what you're trying to argue or why. If you want to discuss something, maybe start by formulating a simple argument so we're all not trying desperately to follow some inane train of "logic". And I use that term loosely.
Also you still haven't given me proofs. Did you actually read Calvin?
::)
I have no idea what you mean by "proofs", but here's a Calvin quote on predestination.
"We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or death."
-J
Ok
Point one
Humans don't have a free will anymore. We did in Eden but then surrendered it by eating the fruit. What humans have now is a will that has been totally infiected with sin. Our will is dominated by our selfish desires. So much so that we can't actually choose salvation for ourselves.
Start with that.
Point two.
You just proved my point abuot Calvin. He says unmistakeably here that God predestined (not foreknew like you said previously) some people to be saved.
-
Ok
Point one
Humans don't have a free will anymore. We did in Eden but then surrendered it by eating the fruit. What humans have now is a will that has been totally infiected with sin. Our will is dominated by our selfish desires. So much so that we can't actually choose salvation for ourselves.
So we don't choose to "accept Jesus" or have faith or whatever? God's already decided, the individual has nothing to do with it? Just to be clear.
Point two.
You just proved my point abuot Calvin. He says unmistakeably here that God predestined (not foreknew like you said previously) some people to be saved.
Then we were making the same point, except I'm saying that Calvin is wrong, only because he takes Paul's words and extrapolates way too far. Like I said, it's mostly a matter of semantics, but based on some of Calvin's language, he spends a lot of time emphasizing the wrong things. There's only one logical position that meshes with several fundamental tenets of Christianity and that is: God knows, but he isn't a puppet master.
-J
-
Ok
Point one
Humans don't have a free will anymore. We did in Eden but then surrendered it by eating the fruit. What humans have now is a will that has been totally infiected with sin. Our will is dominated by our selfish desires. So much so that we can't actually choose salvation for ourselves.
So we don't choose to "accept Jesus" or have faith or whatever? God's already decided, the individual has nothing to do with it? Just to be clear.
Human's don't have the ability to choose salvation for themselves.
I'd also like to defy you to find somewhere in the bible where it says that humans had free will after the fall. when you do I'll come back with biblical evidence as proof of total depravity
Point two.
You just proved my point abuot Calvin. He says unmistakeably here that God predestined (not foreknew like you said previously) some people to be saved.
Then we were making the same point, except I'm saying that Calvin is wrong, only because he takes Paul's words and extrapolates way too far. Like I said, it's mostly a matter of semantics, but based on some of Calvin's language, he spends a lot of time emphasizing the wrong things. There's only one logical position that meshes with several fundamental tenets of Christianity and that is: God knows, but he isn't a puppet master.
-J
[/quote]
If this is going to get down to a debate about the bible could we please use the bible to back up our points?
It's also not JUST Paul's theology. but if you want to limit it to Paul that's fine.
-
Wait, I'm a bit confused. People don't have the ability to choose salvation?
Does that mean that those who don't believe in jesus never could have? Or am I confused?
-
Wait, I'm a bit confused. People don't have the ability to choose salvation?
Does that mean that those who don't believe in jesus never could have? Or am I confused?
They were responsible for their actions.
God gave them every chance. Romans 1 says:
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
So humans are definitely rrsponsible fore their actions but John 6 says
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
So. Yes Man is responsible for his actions but it requires an act of God's grace to enable a man to turn to Christ.
-
Does god grant that act of grace to every person?
-
Does god grant that act of grace to every person?
short answer is no. All Humans are not saved until God reaches in and saves some.
-
Interesting. Why some and not others? How many?
-
Interesting. Why some and not others? How many?
Romans 9
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
It's not for me to know why x and not y gets chosen, but it's not based on merit. I'm just as sinful as the next guy.
I don't know how many either. Only God knows.
-
Do you feel you are provided with salvation?
-
Do you feel you are provided with salvation?
[/quote
Yeah. I can see how God's Holy Spirit has been at work in my life.
-
So anyone who has been offered salvation, can tell, right?
Is it possible that someone who thinks they have been offered salvation is wrong?
-
So anyone who has been offered salvation, can tell, right?
Is it possible that someone who thinks they have been offered salvation is wrong?
Everyone has moments where they doubt their salvation. The English Puritans gave themselves almost no hope of salvation because they were so focussed on being Holy.
Someone who thinks they have been saved but haven't will usually show signs. Those that end up rejecting God weren't elected to begin with.
Someone who isn't elect wont try as hard to grow closer to God.
Matthew 7 says:
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
-
So is there a possibility that you're not offered (you specifically) salvation?
-
So is there a possibility that you're not offered (you specifically) salvation?
Sure. But there isn't :P
-
So is there a possibility that you're not offered (you specifically) salvation?
Sure. But there isn't :P
So you're saying that you know a fact that god has chosen you. And there is 0% chance that you could be wrong.
Right?
-
So is there a possibility that you're not offered (you specifically) salvation?
Sure. But there isn't :P
So you're saying that you know a fact that god has chosen you. And there is 0% chance that you could be wrong.
Right?
can we hurry up and get to the point of these questions?
-
The point is curiosity. I'm not trying to trick you into admitting anything, just trying to understand some of what you're saying. It's not a very popular belief, so I'm not as exposed to it.
No need to be so hostile.
-
The point is curiosity. I'm not trying to trick you into admitting anything, just trying to understand some of what you're saying. It's not a very popular belief, so I'm not as exposed to it.
No need to be so hostile.
By the evidence i can tell that God through grace predestined me.
Let's look at it this way.
Salvation is by faith. Faith is a gift of God's grace (as we can't earn it ourselves) Grace is given by God's predestining me to be a follower of Christ.
I have salvation because I have faith in God. I didn't earn my salvation but God gave it to me nonetheless. Evidence I find is in God's Holy Spirit progressively "santifying" me. I don't blame you if you don't know what sanctifying is. It's basically God drawing me closer to him and turning my focus to him more than the world.
I didn't mean to come across as hostile so much as resigned. That's the ways of the intarwebs.
-
I know what sanctification is, thanks.
-
I know what sanctification is, thanks.
Cool I didn't want to come off using too much jargon to sound superior.
-
A good number of people here are rather educated. You needn't worry about confusing us with big words.
-
A good number of people here are rather educated. You needn't worry about confusing us with big words.
I don't care so much about that as I do about confusing people with Jargon. Progressive sanctification is pretty much a Christian concept so far as I know.
-
Ok
Point one
Humans don't have a free will anymore. We did in Eden but then surrendered it by eating the fruit. What humans have now is a will that has been totally infiected with sin. Our will is dominated by our selfish desires. So much so that we can't actually choose salvation for ourselves.
So we don't choose to "accept Jesus" or have faith or whatever? God's already decided, the individual has nothing to do with it? Just to be clear.
Human's don't have the ability to choose salvation for themselves.
I'd also like to defy you to find somewhere in the bible where it says that humans had free will after the fall. when you do I'll come back with biblical evidence as proof of total depravity
It doesn't say humans have or don't have free will. Doesn't matter, because it comes down to how you think human nature was damaged with the Fall.
The biblical evidence for total depravity is pretty scarce from what I recall, but I'm not interested in debating it.
Point two.
You just proved my point abuot Calvin. He says unmistakeably here that God predestined (not foreknew like you said previously) some people to be saved.
Then we were making the same point, except I'm saying that Calvin is wrong, only because he takes Paul's words and extrapolates way too far. Like I said, it's mostly a matter of semantics, but based on some of Calvin's language, he spends a lot of time emphasizing the wrong things. There's only one logical position that meshes with several fundamental tenets of Christianity and that is: God knows, but he isn't a puppet master.
-J
If this is going to get down to a debate about the bible could we please use the bible to back up our points?
It's also not JUST Paul's theology. but if you want to limit it to Paul that's fine.
Not interested. Done it a million times, never goes anywhere. People just quote shit out of context and interpret it to mean what they've already decided it means. I can think of few more fruitless things to do with my time.
So is there a possibility that you're not offered (you specifically) salvation?
Sure. But there isn't :P
So you're saying that you know a fact that god has chosen you. And there is 0% chance that you could be wrong.
Right?
can we hurry up and get to the point of these questions?
Is that a "yes"?
I've never met a Calvinist or other person who holds a similar view of these matters who WASN'T absolutely certain that they were one of the "chosen ones". Coincidence? :lol ::)
-J
-
Ok
Point one
Humans don't have a free will anymore. We did in Eden but then surrendered it by eating the fruit. What humans have now is a will that has been totally infiected with sin. Our will is dominated by our selfish desires. So much so that we can't actually choose salvation for ourselves.
So we don't choose to "accept Jesus" or have faith or whatever? God's already decided, the individual has nothing to do with it? Just to be clear.
Human's don't have the ability to choose salvation for themselves.
I'd also like to defy you to find somewhere in the bible where it says that humans had free will after the fall. when you do I'll come back with biblical evidence as proof of total depravity
It doesn't say humans have or don't have free will. Doesn't matter, because it comes down to how you think human nature was damaged with the Fall.
The biblical evidence for total depravity is pretty scarce from what I recall, but I'm not interested in debating it.
Point two.
You just proved my point abuot Calvin. He says unmistakeably here that God predestined (not foreknew like you said previously) some people to be saved.
Then we were making the same point, except I'm saying that Calvin is wrong, only because he takes Paul's words and extrapolates way too far. Like I said, it's mostly a matter of semantics, but based on some of Calvin's language, he spends a lot of time emphasizing the wrong things. There's only one logical position that meshes with several fundamental tenets of Christianity and that is: God knows, but he isn't a puppet master.
-J
If this is going to get down to a debate about the bible could we please use the bible to back up our points?
It's also not JUST Paul's theology. but if you want to limit it to Paul that's fine.
Not interested. Done it a million times, never goes anywhere. People just quote shit out of context and interpret it to mean what they've already decided it means. I can think of few more fruitless things to do with my time.
So is there a possibility that you're not offered (you specifically) salvation?
Sure. But there isn't :P
So you're saying that you know a fact that god has chosen you. And there is 0% chance that you could be wrong.
Right?
can we hurry up and get to the point of these questions?
Is that a "yes"?
I've never met a Calvinist or other person who holds a similar view of these matters who WASN'T absolutely certain that they were one of the "chosen ones". Coincidence? :lol ::)
-J
Hey it's not a bad thing that we are secure in our salvation.
Did you read the rest of what I said to Adami? I think I did a pretty good job of not quoting the bible out of context.
However if you're just going to engage in rhetoric. Why do you keep mentioning Paul? It's not just a Pauline doctrine. i also think it's pretty hard to misconstrue it in the original greek. the word that we translate literally means to be "predestined"