At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
In this time of "politically correct" it seems that there is a general good feel attitude about religion. "You're OK, I'm OK" pretty well expresses it. Folks say it doesn't matter how you serve God, because we are all His children. I submit for your consideration this: the God of the Bible is not the same as Allah. Discussion anyone?
Morganite, I have a question for you. Do you believe that a good person, Moslem, Buddhist, Jewish, etc. has everlasting life in Heaven, Paradise, or elsewhere? You testify to being a Christian, right?
As others know, I have made no profession of faith on this forum because I will not be pigeon-holed. I prefer to contribute to discussion from the perspective of how each person in a faith cummunity views his or her own rleigion. So, one time I will defend Romanists aginst unjust charges made by Protestants, Jews against Muslims, Muslims against Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses against Atheists, and so forth. I do not imagine myself stood in a pulpit when I am sat at my keyboard.
You can make up your own mind about my personal faith and whether you are right or wrong in your selection makes no difference to me. My handle provides an extremely slim clue, but does not cross the 't's or dot the 'i's. Further to that, this deponent saith not.
I repeat, I believe that good people of every and no faith will be welcomed by God.
Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen.
Personally, I don't think he died for any of us, in the sense that his death was necessary to convince God to forgive our sins and be reconciled to us. But that's another thread.
Isn't the one thing the same as the other? His dying for us (that you apparently reject), and his effecting our reconciliation with God (that you apparently accept)?
Thank you for clarifying your position. However, if your theology is correct, then the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was pointless, and the original Apostles and Paul were fools to lay down their lives for the Gospel. I do apologize for pulling this thread away from its original intent.
You are showing an disturbing penchant for misunderstanding the not only the words but also the intent of what I have written, and for finding arguments in what I have written that I have not only not addressed, but would not claim to believe.
I have not misplaced Christ's atonement as you charge. I have failed to write a book, but there are contraints on space here and I also have time constraints that prevent me from pursuing every argument down every highway and byway that someone might, possibly, if they were so inclined, decide to steer them.
Because I have not said something should not be taken as either my believing or not believing what it is I have omitted.
If you want to know my posiiton on the atonement of Jesus, why not ask a question about it. If I have time I might well contribute to the thread. Am I correct in concluding that you are not a Democrat?
You mean like the lutheran, protestant, baptists, and methodists? Seems to me this is another similarity between Islam and Christianity and Judaism. When one church(mosque)(synagogue) disagrees on policy or whatever, they form another group and change the name, but still hold the same book dear.Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!!! Honestly the more I learn the less that separates them.
Tal: Mosque ruling committes have many squabbles and fight over proceedure, etc. It reminds me of the truism that when a Welshman is washed ahsore on a deserted island he builds two chapels. One he goes to, and the other he doesn't!
If you want to know my posiiton on the atonement of Jesus, why not ask a question about it. If I have time I might well contribute to the thread. Am I correct in concluding that you are not a Democrat?
Isn't the one thing the same as the other? His dying for us (that you apparently reject), and his effecting our reconciliation with God (that you apparently accept)?
M
No, I don't think they are the same thing. I think our reconciliation is effected by God's earnest desire to heal the estrangement between us. It was Jesus' life that taught us about that, not his death. The idea that the gruesome suffering and death of an innocent person was required to convince God to forgive the rest of us is abhorrent to me.
I will not ask you to explain how you take such meanings from what I have written. You make statements that have nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.
Perhaps you will explain how God will judge those who act right according to the light that is in them, but who might not have even heard of Jesus. Are the Jivaro all going to Hell because they did not become Christians? Are all Jews Hell-bound because they are not Christians? Is every person who lived before Jesus was born going to Hell because they were not Christians?
My thology is based on a loving, just, and merciful God who will do as he promises to do in the Old and New Testaments. I refute any version of God that makes him a despotic bloodthirsty tyrant who delights in sending people to Hell for something over which they had no control.
Let me set a question to you that was once set by Dr. S. Parkes Cadman, once a famous radio preacher and former president of the Federated Council of Churches of America, over the radio for millions of listeners:
Question -- What, in your opinion, becomes of those souls who in this life had no opportunity of accepting or rejecting the truth as it is found in the Gospels?
Answer -- Those who never heard the name of Jesus since human beings first appeared on the earth constitute the vast majority who have lived and died here. Moreover, hundreds of millions now living are in the same condition. Imagination cannot conceive their endless array.
Even today multitudes exist in Christian lands who because of the circumstances of their birth and upbringing are almost as ignorant of the New Testament faith as were the ancient Greeks who never heard of Christ. Think also of the host of innocent children who pass on before arriving at conscious responsibility for their own lives.
Even when dimly understood, your question would be unbearably oppressive if none except those who have intelligently and voluntarily believed in Christ are hereafter admitted to the Divine Presence. If as we are taught to believe, the incalculable myriads of human beings who have occupied, or, now occupy this life, exist for eternity, and must spend it somewhere, how can we limit the redemptive efficacy of divine love to the brief span of man's mortal existence here?
Consider the issue as it affects the fate of those near and dear to you. Then apply its significance to all mankind. It is our consolation and hope that since God is the Father of us all, not one soul is lost to His sight, and none because of less importance to Him. "His mercy endureth forever." The creeds which confine the operations of that mercy to the life that now is do injustice to its saving virtue, and injure the cause in behalf of which they were set up.
How would you answer Dr Cadman's question?
MRGANITE
Rom 1:18-20
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(KJV)
The Apostle Paul tells us that a study of creation will lead us toward the Creator. As man accepts the truth he receives, he receives further truth. Was it not so with Abraham? I am willing to leave judgment to God, but if good non-believers (in Christ) have it made, then why the command to carry the Gospel to the world? You make an eloquent case when you quote:
Rom 10:13-14
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
(KJV)
It is obvious to me that one must call (with all the implications) on the Lord in order to be saved. There are some who believe that those who never heard the Gospel will have an opportunity to hear and accept, but I don't know that that is supported by scripture. As to those before Christ, the righteous were saved by faith in that they looked forward to the fulfillment of the promise of God as revealed by the prophets.
No, I don't think they are the same thing. I think our reconciliation is effected by God's earnest desire to heal the estrangement between us. It was Jesus' life that taught us about that, not his death. The idea that the gruesome suffering and death of an innocent person was required to convince God to forgive the rest of us is abhorrent to me.
The idea that the Father had or wanted to see His Son suffer and die seems to be a widespread mis-conception. His death is spoken of a redemption or ransom. Think about it. A ransom is paid to a kidnapper! I believe that Satan had kidnapped our race when he deceived Eve and got Adam to commit treason. I believe that when our God determined to buy his creation back, the price demanded by Satan was the Creator's death. Of course, since there was no valid accusation against Him, death could not hold Him. And to answer another point (not yours), Jesus' death was for everyone, but we must validate it on our individual behalf by faith in that substitutionary act.
Rom 1:18-20
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(KJV)
The Apostle Paul tells us that a study of creation will lead us toward the Creator. As man accepts the truth he receives, he receives further truth. Was it not so with Abraham? I am willing to leave judgment to God, but if good non-believers (in Christ) have it made, then why the command to carry the Gospel to the world? You make an eloquent case when you quote:
Rom 10:13-14
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
(KJV)
It is obvious to me that one must call (with all the implications) on the Lord in order to be saved. There are some who believe that those who never heard the Gospel will have an opportunity to hear and accept, but I don't know that that is supported by scripture. As to those before Christ, the righteous were saved by faith in that they looked forward to the fulfillment of the promise of God as revealed by the prophets.
The apostle is saying that those who hear should call, but he knows that not all hear. What is the disposition of those who do not hear? Will they be condemned for something that is not their fault?
The idea that the Father had or wanted to see His Son suffer and die seems to be a widespread mis-conception. His death is spoken of a redemption or ransom. Think about it. A ransom is paid to a kidnapper! I believe that Satan had kidnapped our race when he deceived Eve and got Adam to commit treason. I believe that when our God determined to buy his creation back, the price demanded by Satan was the Creator's death. Of course, since there was no valid accusation against Him, death could not hold Him. And to answer another point (not yours), Jesus' death was for everyone, but we must validate it on our individual behalf by faith in that substitutionary act.
That theory of atonement is known as the Ransom (or Deception) theory, in which God is said to have tricked satan by letting him believe that when Jesus paid the ransom, that satan would then be able to keep hold of Jesus, but because Jesus was sinless, he could not do so. It is a somewhat old fashoned and latrgely discredited theory because of the implication that God would be involved in deceit and trickery, thus posing an interesting moral problem.
The theory that satan had kdnapped all of humanity is likewise past its sell by date. The Ransom Theory was based, in part, on Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:6, where Origin interpreted the word "ransom" literally, but unwisely.
Mark 10:45: "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."
1 Timothy 2:5-6: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who
gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
In Timothy Paul says that Jesus' ransom was a form of mediation between God and Mankind. Why owuld Jesus have to pay satan a red cent?
Morris Cerullo, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, and others in the Word-faith Movement teach a modern-day variation of the Ransom Theory. Their concept is that when Jesus descended into Hell after his death, he was tormented by Satan and all his demons. The suffering that he experienced during this torture was the ransom that God paid to Satan. There is no scriptural support for this theory.
Mediaeval Christanity taught that when Jesus descended inot Hell he harrowed the place and was not harrowed by it, and led the captives free, but these wre the spirits of the dead, as Peter explains.
The Ransom theory, as well as other violence-based atonement explanations, suffer from an inconsistency in Christian teaching. The church has traditionally taught that a person is responsible for their own sin, and that a person cannot morally be punished for the sins of others. Of course, they deviated from this teaching, as when they taught as late as the mid-20th century that modern-day Jews were responsible for the execution of Yahweh. But in general, people were not held responsible for the sins of others.
The church also teaches that the default destination for Adam, Eve, their children, their grandchildren and their descendents to the present time, after death, will be Hell because of the first parents' transgression in the Garden of Eden when they ate the forbidden fruit. All will be tortured in Hell, unless they are saved through sacraments and/or good works and/or faith. The sin of Eve and Adam were imputed to the entire human race.
Most liberal and many mainline Christians believe that Adam and Eve were mythical humans. That is, they didn't exist as actual people. Without that belief, this atonement theory collapses.
Some Christians note that Eve and Adam were created as proto-humans without a sense of sin. After all, they ate the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to develop a knowledge of good and evil. Being without a moral sense, they cannot be responsible for eating the fruit any more than an animal might. Again, if the first parents are not responsible for eating the fruit, the atonement theory collapses.
Phil Johnson, Executive Director of Grace to You states that there is no support in the Bible for the concept that Satan has a legitimate claim on sinners. He suggests that the "Biblical word ransom simply means 'redemption-price;' it does not necessarily imply a price paid to Satan."
Several passages in the Bible imply that Christ's death was a ritual sacrifice to God, and thereby not to Satan:
bullet Isaiah 53:10: "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." King James Version.
Ephesians 5:2: "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour." KJV.
Origen's version requires that God acts in a deceitful manner. That is does not match the traditional Christian belief about the justice, honesty, and truthfulness of God. Many versions of the ransom theory assume that Satan is unaware of the powers of Jesusa. The later version assumes that Satan is deluded into thinking that he is more powerful than Jesus. Yet Satan is portrayed in the Bible as a dedicated, intelligent, and evil angel, not a quasi-deity who is so disconnected from reality that he is unaware of the capabilities of Jesus. Satan is not described in the Bible as suffering from delusions of grandeur.
The entire concept of Satan as a living entity is rejected by many Christians today; they view Satan as a symbol of evil, not as an actual person. If Satan is not an all-evil quasi-deity, Origen's theory collapses.
The Bible identifies Satan as a created being; a fallen angel who disobeyed God. Similarly, humans are commonly portrayed as created beings who have disobeyed God and fallen. There is no obvious rationale for assuming that Satan had control over all of humanity any more than the reverse might have been true.
Since God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibeneficient, just, and ethical, it is illogical to assume that he would be willing to allow his son to be tortured to death if there were another way to achieve atonement. God might have, for example, simply forgiven Adam and Eve for their sin. According to the gospels, Jesus repeatedly taught that extending forgiveness is to take the moral high road.
Professor of Philosophy Michael Martin writes: "Since, on the ransom theory, after Jesus' death and resurrection, human beings were out of the devil's clutches, it would seem that the way to salvation would simply be to follow a life free from sin so as not to fall under the devil's control. What has faith in Jesus got to do with this? The ransom theory supplies no answer."
RGANITE
Linear Mode
