ARTICLE: Is Jesus the Only Savior?

[STR Ambassador]

With the imminent release of "The Passion of the Christ," questions about why Jesus is necessary will naturally be raised. Here's a commentary that addresses an aspect of that question.


Jesus, the Only Savior by Greg Koukl

A caller alerted me to the fact that apparently there's a president of a Baptist college who believes Jesus is not necessary for salvation. If I'm understanding his view correctly, this would make him a pluralist--someone who says that other religions are legitimate and appropriate avenues to God and that the work of the cross is not necessary at all for salvation. We Christians happen to believe in Jesus because it's "our thing." Jesus, though, could be completely out of the picture and salvation could still be secured through other religions.
As a point of information, this would be different from the "inclusivist" Roman Catholic view. On this view, Jesus' work on the cross is necessary for forgiveness, but one need not believe in Jesus--and could outright reject Him--and still enjoy the benefits of the cross. The forgiveness that comes through Jesus can be mediated through the sincere pursuit of other religions. Therefore, all people, regardless of there belief systems, are potentially included—ergo the word "inclusivist"—in God's Kingdom. To put it most directly, the good Buddhist is cleansed by the blood of Christ (though one might as why he needs the blood of Christ if he's good already).
My caller asked this question: Should a person who is a religious pluralist be allowed to continue as a president of a Baptist college? I think the answer may be obvious when we ask the question another way: Should a non-Christian be allowed to run a Christian institution? It seems the answer to this question must be "no."
You've probably noted, of course, that I'm presuming the president of this Baptist college is not a Christian simply because he's a pluralist, which may seem like a bold thing to say. I have a very good reason for this presumption, though, and it has to do with what it means to be a Christian.
The word "Christian" has a definition. It has a broad cultural meaning, but that's not what I'm talking about here. Rather, I'm talking about a theological definition. It seems to me, at bare minimum, being a Christian in a genuine, theological, biblical sense requires believing a particular thing to be true about Jesus. And the thing we believe to be true is not that Jesus is my savior. Rather, the thing we believe is that Jesus is the Savior, and because He is the Savior, He can therefore be my savior. Because Jesus is the Savior, He can save me.
There are other things, to be sure, that are necessary to believe in order to call yourself a Christian, byou've got to at least believe that Jesus is the Savior. This is the beginning. This is the foundation, that Jesus did something for us we absolutely need to have done for us, something we would perish without. We turn to Jesus because we need Him, that is, we desperately require something only He can give--forgiveness. If He doesn't give us forgiveness, then we're in hot water--or, I should say, hot fire.
Now, this seems so basic to Christianity I feel a bit foolish belaboring the point. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Savior. He is not just the savior for me; He's not just a savior for others--one of a number of possible rescuers, like a team of lifeguards might be. The Bible teaches--and Christianity is built on this teaching--that He is the Savior of the whole world, and without Him the world could not be saved.
If this is a core teaching of Christianity--so vital that denying it effaces the religion entirely so that it no longer is the same thing--then what are we to make of someone who denies this truth? If someone believes that members of other religions are as easily saved through their own religion as Christians are through Jesus, what does this tells us about the beliefs of this person concerning the nature of the work of the cross and the person of Christ?
If you say people can be saved without Jesus, then Jesus is not the Savior. These people either save themselves (making each of them a savior), or they are saved by others. Is this possible?
If Jesus is a savior, then what does He save someone from? The Bible makes it clear that Jesus saved me from the judgment I would have received if He hadn't save me. Therefore, if one repudiates their need for Jesus, then Jesus isn't saving them and they stand in the path of God's judgment. What could be simpler? What could be more clear?
Now, if you believe other people can be saved through other religions, then you certainly don't believe that Jesus is the Savior. And if you reject that Jesus is the savior, it really calls into question whether He's even your savior, because if other people could be saved without Him, why couldn't you? You need Jesus to be saved because you're lost without Him. If you're lost without Him, so is everybody else who's in your same position, a sinner. That, by the way, includes everybody else, according to the biblical account. Therefore, everybody else needs Jesus, and it doesn't make any sense to say that everybody else can get to heaven without Him, but that you happen to need him.
If you do say that, it's the same as saying Jesus is not the Savior, and if you reject that Jesus is the Savior, then you're rejecting the foundational tenet of Christianity. You are, therefore, denying the heart and soul of the faith, and it doesn't seem to me that you can then call yourself a Christian.
This is not that hard, friends. In order to call yourself a Christian, you must fulfill certain foundational and fundamental requirements, and there's nothing more foundational or fundamental about Christianity than that Jesus is the Savior. Not a savior, not my savior, not the savior of some, but the Savior, the Savior of the world. And because He is the Savior, He is capable of saving all of us. Because He's the Savior, there is no other savior, and we can't save ourselves.
Which is precisely why the apostle said, "There is salvation in none other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)


Stand to Reason - www.str.org - http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/jes_only.htm

[tgb_1974]

First of all, I agree that a non-christian should not run a christian institution. Private institutions have that right in this country to fire someone that does not represent their beleifs.

But I want to take exception to the exclusivist position of Greg's. I want to focus on the phrase "Jesus is my saviour" and elaborate it to the point where we can agree on the underlying phenomena.

What does it mean when we say "Jesus is my saviour"? Does it mean that we believe a set of historical propositions, a historical hypothesis, if you will, or a historical theory? Or does it mean that we have experienced what christians call "conversion"?

Believing the historical proposition that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended as a necessary part of a "plan of salvation" does not necessarily lead to conversion. But conversion usually leads people to believe the historical proposition that it was Jesus' work making forgiveness possible.

What the sinner believes is only a possiblity, a life without sin, becomes an actuality in the moment of conversion. The sinner begins by turning inward and reflecting on his despair, then proceeds to feel guilt and an overwhelming sense of anxiety.

The will figures into the next part of the experience and this is why Free Will is so important to Christianity. We may not have a completely Free Will, but we must at least be able to choose freely at this moment. In other words, it is up to the person alone at this point to choose. Nobody can help the sinner at this point except himself. The sinner must choose.

What does the sinner choose? The sinner chooses humility, the sinner chooses to die. Christians call this "dying to the old man of sin". You have to see yourself in your sin. But in order to do that you need to step out of your sin and see it from a new perspective.

The sinner imagines a new self and imagines what it is like to be a humble, happy self. From that vantage point he looks back on their past life, a life leading to guilt, anxiety, and despair. However, it should be noted that the sinner who senses guilt is closer to god than the sinner who senses no guilt. Christians would say that they have felt "the Holy Spirit".

At that poin the sinner wishes for this possible life to become actual, but remains powerless. At that moment something happens. That possible happy life becomes actual. And it is really important to Christians to recognize the power that turned possiblity into actuality was not their own. The sinner makes a second choice. They choose life. And they choose to affirm the power they felt in the moment of their conversion as a foreign power, not generated by the Self, (even though all of this occurs in a split second and completely inside the mind of the sinner). They choose God. Faith is a decision found in the moment.

Now here's the trick question. Was that power really Jesus? For the newly converted that rise from their knees with a new awareness, a new happier consciousness, they are supplied one word to explain what just happened - "Jesus". It comes from a familiarity with the story of a god, whereby the sinner can follow the fate of that god, and identify with the god. Christianity accomplishes this by telling their followers that "Jesus died for your sins on the cross" thereby readers identify with the dying god-man. And if someone dying for your sins doesn't instill the requisite humility for the experience then that person is as good as dead anyway.

By identifying with the Jesus story people can describe their own experience of death, resurrection, and ascension.

Then Jesus departs earth without really explaining why.

But the story is all that Christians need. Please note, that the story does not even have to be historical. If you affirm the Christian experience, if you choose to affirm the divine and thus have faith, based on the historicity of events 2000 years ago then I would say you have "Faith in History" and not "Faith in God".

What the Historical Christian must show is that historical knowledge is necessary to have such a truly divine experience. Where does historical knowledge figure into the conversion experience. If we understand that historical knowledge does not figure into the experience at all and yet we still affirm the experience as truly divine then the experience is available to all other cultures, peoples, and languages - though they may have different stories, practices, and terms to describe it.

[ajohnson]

What does it mean when we say "Jesus is my saviour"? Does it mean that we believe a set of historical propositions, a historical hypothesis, if you will, or a historical theory? Or does it mean that we have experienced what christians call "conversion"?

Neither, it means I agree with God when He spoke through the Apostle Paul and said for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). I saw myself how God saw me. That is, I rebelled against God and I couldn't pay the price for my sinfulness. I accept the free gift of God the Father whereby Jesus is my sin substitution. He (Jesus) paid in full for MY sin because I can't pay. He (Jesus) saved me from my sin penalty (my Savior).

At that poin the sinner wishes for this possible life to become actual, but remains powerless. At that moment something happens. That possible happy life becomes actual. And it is really important to Christians to recognize the power that turned possiblity into actuality was not their own. The sinner makes a second choice. They choose life. And they choose to affirm the power they felt in the moment of their conversion as a foreign power, not generated by the Self, (even though all of this occurs in a split second and completely inside the mind of the sinner). They choose God. Faith is a decision found in the moment.

Now here's the trick question. Was that power really Jesus? For the newly converted that rise from their knees with a new awareness, a new happier consciousness, they are supplied one word to explain what just happened - "Jesus". It comes from a familiarity with the story of a god, whereby the sinner can follow the fate of that god, and identify with the god. Christianity accomplishes this by telling their followers that "Jesus died for your sins on the cross" thereby readers identify with the dying god-man. And if someone dying for your sins doesn't instill the requisite humility for the experience then that person is as good as dead anyway.

You make the conversion sound like some kind of new age enlightement. But the conversion is an actual event. The savior Jesus does, in fact, send the converted the Holy Spirit as a helper. Even though someone watching a conversion happen can't see a physical thing, look at the results of a real conversion. Some people (not all) immediately stop doing some kind of distructive life style. I've personally seen rude and flat our mean people become civil and polite and as even keeled as you can get, instantly. Others have quit smoking, stop being a drug addict, etc. Real, true, life changing events. Could the person do this on their own? Some can. But the caution we're given is to watch their fruits. A real conversion is life long and everlasting.

By identifying with the Jesus story people can describe their own experience of death, resurrection, and ascension.

People can't cause these experience to happen to themselves. We can't resurrect ourself. Nor can we ascend. It can only be performed by God. We will, of course, die - but we can't discribe that experience to someone on this world.


Then Jesus departs earth without really explaining why.

The entire New Testament is all about Jesus and answers all the questions you have about God in human form. Especially in all four Gospels and the Book of Acts.

But the story is all that Christians need. Please note, that the story does not even have to be historical. If you affirm the Christian experience, if you choose to affirm the divine and thus have faith, based on the historicity of events 2000 years ago then I would say you have "Faith in History" and not "Faith in God".

Agreed, but if you choose to have "Fath in History" Jesus isn't your Savior - you must choose to have faith in the person of Jesus Christ, God among us.

What the Historical Christian must show is that historical knowledge is necessary to have such a truly divine experience. Where does historical knowledge figure into the conversion experience. If we understand that historical knowledge does not figure into the experience at all and yet we still affirm the experience as truly divine then the experience is available to all other cultures, peoples, and languages - though they may have different stories, practices, and terms to describe it.

From my experience, the historical claims of Christianity means that Christ is (and was) a real person who was born, lived, and died just the way the Gospels claim, and the way the Old Tesament predicted it would happen. Christianity is historical and evidential in nature. In other words you can see physical evidence of many of the places and things claimed in both the Old and New Tesaments. This just give someone to have even more trust and confidence in the one True God discribed in Christian Bible.

No other religous claims can explain the way the world is. Christianity does. Christianity conforms to reality. All other religions are a "should've, would've, could've" religions. They are pipe dreams, if we do ____ then the would would be a better place. If the gods didn't do _____ the world would be a better place. If everybody would just do _____ the world would be perfect.

A true faith in Jesus Christ as the person who He claims to be - is a real life changing event. It' isn't a change brought about by the person wanting a change and vows to change himself. This type of change will result in an eternity with our Creator. Any other conversion is an eternity spent in utter separation from our Creator.

My aplogies, I'm always so short of time. This is a little incoherant - I must go now.

Regards,


Alan

[tgb_1974]

Which statements in my description of conversion do you object to?

[ajohnson]

It's difficult to point to just one sentence and say "this one" or "that one". As I said, you make the 'conversion' process sound like a simple emotional one. Is that what you were potraying? If not, I'm sorry I misread your post. I have been know to miss read stuff.

My focus in my response was that the conversion wasn't just emotional, it was an actual event whereby the Holy Spirit indwells the believer. Is it really necessary to understand fully the historicity of Jesus Christ prior to believing? Not necessarily.

I did, but my coming to a saving faith in Jesus Christ was at the age of 21 and I came from a very heathen family. My children came to accept the sacrifice of Jesus for their sins at around age 8 (they're now 21 and 19).

It's a wonderful thing to witness when someone accepts Jesus Christ as his/her savior (truely emotional). But the only ones who can have a 'conversion experience' are those that really put their faith in Jesus Christ. All else is a couterfit conversion.

I hope I explained myself a little better.

Regards,

Alan

[tgb_1974]

So then you tried? I mean, did you examine each sentence and agree?

I can understand that each statement may be considered true and the whole have a "sound" or a "tone" that is incorrect. But I want to know if my description was accurate.

So now my last question stands. Where does historical knowledge figure into the conversion experience? What I'm asking for is a description of a conversion experience that shows when and where the historical knowledge becomes a factor.

Could you desribe a conversion experience that shows the necessity of historical knowledge?

[ajohnson]

Great questions! I'll rereadyour original post carefully and answer your questions from your most recent post later today.

Regards,

Alan

[ajohnson]

So then you tried? I mean, did you examine each sentence and agree?

Yes I examined each sentence and I don't agree with all of them (just like you don't agree with everyone of my sentences). I don't think it possible to review each sentence and explain why I agree or don't agree.

I can understand that each statement may be considered true and the whole have a "sound" or a "tone" that is incorrect. But I want to know if my description was accurate.

I'm a little confused with what description your talking about. Your description of a 'conversion experience', your description of the newly converted's ability to experience death, ressurection, and assention? The converted to live life without sin (it's impossible)?

If you mean your description in general, I answered that question in my first response - you make it sound like new age enlightenment and a real Christian conversion is so much different.

So now my last question stands. Where does historical knowledge figure into the conversion experience? What I'm asking for is a description of a conversion experience that shows when and where the historical knowledge becomes a factor.

The 'conversion experience' is unique to the individual. And this is my point. It isn't a legalist thing to happen. It isn't; show someone a, then b will happen. It's unique to the individual. Some must have a historical knowledge of Jesus, some don't. Some have all the historical knowledge in the world and still never come to a real faith in Jesus Christ. They might come to intellectual assent. Something along the lines of - Yes, Jesus was on this earth, God's son, He died on the cross for my sins, etc. They may even understand their need for a Savior but never come to real faith.

The God we Christian worship treats every one with the uniqueness needed for each of them to know Him as a real person. Simply put, most ignore the knowledge given to them about God.

Could you desribe a conversion experience that shows the necessity of historical knowledge?

I can only describe mine. I realized the the man/God Jesus Christ was a real life living person. Who was born, lived, died and was raised again on the the third day - just as the Scriptures said. He died on the cross as an atonement for my sins. I gave Him my debt of sin and accepted His gift of eternity with Him.

NOTE - I've put 'conversion experience' in " ' " because I'm not sure were talking about the same thing.

Did this help? Did I answer any of your questions? If not my applogies, sometimes I'm a little dense.

Best Regards,

Alan

[tgb_1974]

That's a great description! And I'm so glad for your new found happiness! A new found eternal one!

Whatever it was that came into your life is absolutely divine in my book. Notice that you realized Jesus in a new way. You realized him as "a real life living person" which the historical god is not. History has to do with the past, past lives no longer "living". Historical personalities cannot interact with living beings no more than George Washington can "give" you an apple, or you could receive a gift from Thomas Jefferson. And yet your experience was a transaction between yourself and god.

You are eternally happy and "indebted" to God for "saving you". And now you are "converted". Now you have a new being, you realize you're being on a higher plane of existence, one that conforms to ethical behavior and worships the sacred good.

I knew we would agree once we got down describing the experience itself. Just as you say "Some must have a historical knowledge of Jesus and some don't" I happen to agree. In fact I'll go one step further and say that historical knowledge is exclusive and denies that anyone without proper historical knowledge can have this experience. Of all the Christians, I prefer the ones that don't.

[tgb_1974]

I just have one question.

How do you do the quote boxes on your replies? That would be really helpful to know how to do.

Thanks

Tom

[ajohnson]

Whatever it was that came into your life is absolutely divine in my book. Notice that you realized Jesus in a new way. You realized him as "a real life living person" which the historical god is not.

What exactly do you mean by this statement?

The historical God described in the Bible is the God I willingly bow down and worship. I learned about Him from a hisorical book called the Bible. I did hear about Him through another person, but I didn't understand Him until I read the Bible.


History has to do with the past, past lives no longer "living". Historical personalities cannot interact with living beings no more than George Washington can "give" you an apple, or you could receive a gift from Thomas Jefferson.

These are not historical personalites - these were real life people written about. I'm not sure we're saying the same thing. If we're saying the same thing, why can't we use the same words? Just because an event (or person lived) in the past, doesn't make that event an less factual. The attack on Pearl Harbor really did take place, there is plenty of evidence all over Hawaii. It isn't an hisorical persanality with nothing to give you, go visit the USS Arizona Memorial.



I did trade my sorrows and shame and guilt for etenity with Him.

[quote] You are eternally happy and "indebted" to God for "saving you". And now you are "converted". Now you have a new being, you realize you're being on a higher plane of existence, one that conforms to ethical behavior and worships the sacred good.

I'm not on a higher plane of excistance. I'm still living in the same sess pool I lived in before I was saved. My behavior is always a daily struggle and the only thing I worship is the triune God.

It's these terms that want me to ask you - Are you an orthadox Christian? or something else? I've never run into orthodox Christians using these terms. Being former military, I traveled around quite a bit. And went to many differnt Chrsitian churches.

I knew we would agree once we got down describing the experience itself.

I'm still not sure if I can say I agree with you. I keep saying, In order to have your sins forgiven you only need accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior - By what method isn't necessary, so long as it's the same Jesus Christ described in the Christian Bible.

In fact I'll go one step further and say that historical knowledge is exclusive and denies that anyone without proper historical knowledge can have this experience. Of all the Christians, I prefer the ones that don't.

This is another red flag term - 'experience'. Nowadays, this term is exclusively an emotional term. Do you mean it in this way?

I'm still not understanding your posts like you want me too. They still seem, to me, to be filled with terms that are full of ambiguity.

What is your point about the historicity of Jesus? If it's that someone can't come to a saving knowledge of Him by reading about Him? If it is, then how does a person learn about Him and what He has done for them personally? They can't say "God teach me about you" because God has shown that (at least right now) He works through other people. There's no new revelation to individuals.

Now this isn't to say that he doesn't communicate with us, after all this is the purpose of the Holy Spirit. There is just no revelation that isn't already in the Bible. (Like - "Alan, go and kill Dr. so and so [perfom murder] and after that marry that non-believing woman over there" [unequal yoking]).

Regards,

Alan

[ajohnson]

I just have one question.

How do you do the quote boxes on your replies? That would be really helpful to know how to do.

Thanks

Tom


Hi Tom,

To start your quote first open bracket '[' , then the word 'quote , then close bracket ']'.

To end your quote open bracket '[' then '/quote' then close bracket']'

Regards,

Alan

[tgb_1974]

Ok,

We are focusing on what it means for Jesus to be your "savior"

And although we use the same words, and that causes great ambiguity as you mentioned, we should not let our words allow for categorical errors by applying the same word to two different things.

So we will contrast

What does it mean for Jesus to be your Savior
and
What does it mean for the Historical Jesus to be your Savior.

The first sentence implies some kind of conversion experience, or we shall take it to mean that anyone who understands this question has had such an experience, called "conversion" by Christians.

The second sentence implies that the converted Christian must equivocate "Jesus" in the first sentence with the "Historical Jesus" of the second sentence.

Those who understand what it means for "Jesus" to be your savior have had an experience of a deity called Jesus. They understand the life giving power of this god, and acquire happiness in the face of suffering. This is truly a divine event. And only these people who have had this experience can claim to understand another term that gets abused - Faith. Faith necessarily results from experience. It cannot be acquired through reason, or theory, although after having the experience that causes faith we can reason about it, theorize about it, attempt to describe it.

So we choose to describe the experience in historical terms, as if 2000 years ago matters, as if what happened 2000 years ago applies to what was happening to the individual in their moment of conversion. By equivocating the Savior "Jesus" with the "Historical Jesus" we attempt to ground our conversion experience in the historical, which is to say, the past, rather than recognizing that nothing in the conversion experience has anything to do with the past, except ones own personal past, but nothing to do with the biography of a famous Jew.

So we equivocate God and the Historical Jesus and are forced to admit that if we were misinformed about this unrelated past our conversion experience would be invalidated. We, therefore, must not have faith anymore. But precisely what the converted learn in their moment of conversion is certainty about the way the universe really is. How can this faith ever be taken away?

Well non-christians argue that the historical Jesus was not God. Most that care to argue over the matter also usually refuse to acknowledge the divine in the Christian conversion experience. That doesn't sit to well with the Christians so instead of insisting that what they experienced was truly divine, these Christians begin to defend the divine by reading history, by attempting to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, through inducive means, that a man resurrected himself and literally rose to heaven. And somehow by showing this they prove that this man was also god, and THE GOD they experienced in the moment of their conversion.

The problem is that Historical knowledge can only be arrived at through induction and can never produce certainty, not the type of certainty obatained by Christians who have a faith grounded in their own personal experience of the deity.

I think this is what you mean when you say "I realized the the man/God Jesus Christ was a real life living person". What you mean is that God became a part of your personal life, inspiring you in the present, and taking on a "real life" in you, in the moment of your conversion experience.

And you interacted with this deity too. You gave this real life living person something, you gave it your "debt of sin". As you say "I did trade my sorrows and shame and guilt for etenity with Him." So you have him something and he gave you something. That is impossible to do with a historical person that lived 2000 years ago. This is meant to show that in the moment of conversion, arguably the most spiritual moment in a christians life, they exchange something with a diety, and in return for a new life the convert 'gives a law unto himself' and becomes "morally good" and becomes mature. These are all acts of the will that must be performed freely with no coersion.

So does forcing people to understand this diety as a historical god coerce them to convert? Why yes. It says, this deity is a historical brute fact, just like Peal Harbor, and anyone within earshot must reckon with it just as we reckon with all other historical brute facts, when a true conversion experience has nothing to do with the past, except one's own personal past.

About the "higher plane of existence" comment. I don't like using that phrase either but I was being lazy and not explaining myself. I simply wish to point out that the newly converted christian looks out the same eye-holes they always have, but they see EVERYTHING differently. They see everything colored a Jesus color. It is as if Jesus "shines" on everything. We start to appreciate life. We even appreciate nature, and the sun, which literally shines on everything, and that too reminds us of God. By associating wonder to everything, even wondering at the sun, and this grand universe, or even the smaller things like other human beings and the goodness that exists among them, we feel the wonder that we felt in the moment when god "came into our hearts". We feel appreciative and happy.
That is a "higher plane" than the crappy, depressed, guilty, dim outlook we had before.

Now let's look at what happens when we do associate the historical with the spiritual, or when we describe spiritual experience in historical terms. We fight over which religion has the true god, the true savior, when other religions, especially non-historical ones, just might afford the same divine experience of Christianity. We fight over who has the right version of history. We fight over who has the right construction of history and imply that others cannot possibly have their own conversion experience because they have not got the right history book.

Now let's look at my use of the word "experience" and why you would be adverse to using such a term when we both admit that expeience is necessary for faith. It is most certaily an emotional experience, but that does not betray the experience. Emotions are a necessary part of life and especially moments such as conversion. By becoming "objective" we become disinterested or detached. We try to act on universal principles of reason, especially since we believer our experience of God is "universal", that is, comprehendable by everyone, past, present, future, and across all cultures. Theory is the handmaiden of objectivity so we naturally, and falsely, look to disinterested, scientific, theoretical, reasoning to provide us with faith, which can only be based on experience.

From the descriptions of the Holy Spirit that I hear coming from Christians I talk with, this Holy Spirit, the non-historical spirit of the trinity, the one that convicts, sounds more right. I think Chrsitianity has the truth in it, but its a little confused.

[ajohnson]

Tom,

Thank you for taking the time and giving me a better explaination. I think I'm beginning to understand the POV you're coming from. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're saying that some people can have the same 'conversion experience' with a diety and not call that diety - Jesus Christ?



We are focusing on what it means for Jesus to be your "savior"
The first sentence implies some kind of conversion experience.....
The second sentence implies that the converted Christian must equivocate "Jesus" in the first sentence with the "Historical Jesus" of the second sentence.

I'll have to disagree with you if you're using the standard definition of equivocate - 1) to use equivocal language esp. with intent to deceive 2) to avoind committing oneself in what one says.

...understand what it means for "Jesus" to be your savior have had an experience of a deity called Jesus. They understand the life giving power of this god, and acquire happiness in the face of suffering. This is truly a divine event. And only these people who have had this experience can claim to understand another term that gets abused - Faith. Faith necessarily results from experience. It cannot be acquired through reason, or theory, although after having the experience that causes faith we can reason about it, theorize about it, attempt to describe it.

Again, I'll have to disagree with you in this way. Christian faith (or saving faith) involves active personal trust to Jesus Christ - period. But it isn't the amount of faith in that saves, but in the object of faith that saves. It makes no difference if you've studied the historicity of Jesus either before or after conversion. It's the same conversion.

I will agree with you though - A knowledge of His life and ministry on the earth adds to an individual's understanding of Jesus Christ.

So we choose to describe the experience in historical terms, as if 2000 years ago matters, as if what happened 2000 years ago applies to what was happening to the individual in their moment of conversion. By equivocating the Savior "Jesus" with the "Historical Jesus" we attempt to ground our conversion experience in the historical, which is to say, the past, rather than recognizing that nothing in the conversion experience has anything to do with the past, except ones own personal past, but nothing to do with the biography of a famous Jew.

Again , not sure what you mean with equivocate here.

So we equivocate God and the Historical Jesus and are forced to admit that if we were misinformed about this unrelated past our conversion experience would be invalidated. We, therefore, must not have faith anymore. But precisely what the converted learn in their moment of conversion is certainty about the way the universe really is. How can this faith ever be taken away?

I might agree with you in this way. If there was foolproof evidence (historical proof?) that Jesus's bones were found.

Well non-christians argue that the historical Jesus was not God. Most that care to argue over the matter also usually refuse to acknowledge the divine in the Christian conversion experience. That doesn't sit to well with the Christians so instead of insisting that what they experienced was truly divine, these Christians begin to defend the divine by reading history, by attempting to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, through inducive means, that a man resurrected himself and literally rose to heaven. And somehow by showing this they prove that this man was also god, and THE GOD they experienced in the moment of their conversion.

I'd say you described what we do is pretty accurate (from an average Joe's POV)

The problem is that Historical knowledge can only be arrived at through induction and can never produce certainty, not the type of certainty obatained by Christians who have a faith grounded in their own personal experience of the deity.

Very true

I think this is what you mean when you say "I realized the the man/God Jesus Christ was a real life living person". What you mean is that God became a part of your personal life, inspiring you in the present, and taking on a "real life" in you, in the moment of your conversion experience.

He actually took on "real life" prior to my conversion

As you say "I did trade my sorrows and shame and guilt for etenity with Him." So you have him something and he gave you something. That is impossible to do with a historical person that lived 2000 years ago. This is meant to show that in the moment of conversion, arguably the most spiritual moment in a christians life, they exchange something with a diety, and in return for a new life the convert 'gives a law unto himself' and becomes "morally good" and becomes mature. These are all acts of the will that must be performed freely with no coersion.

Agreed

So does forcing people to understand this diety as a historical god coerce them to convert?

I would have to disagree with you again. The Christian conversion cannot be forced. The one true God only indwells those that ask from the 'heart'.

About the "higher plane of existence" comment. I don't like using that phrase either but I was being lazy and not explaining myself. I simply wish to point out that the newly converted christian looks out the same eye-holes they always have, but they see EVERYTHING differently. They see everything colored a Jesus color. It is as if Jesus "shines" on everything. We start to appreciate life. We even appreciate nature, and the sun, which literally shines on everything, and that too reminds us of God. By associating wonder to everything, even wondering at the sun, and this grand universe, or even the smaller things like other human beings and the goodness that exists among them, we feel the wonder that we felt in the moment when god "came into our hearts". We feel appreciative and happy.
That is a "higher plane" than the crappy, depressed, guilty, dim outlook we had before.

Can I copy some of this? This is a very accurate discription of looking at the world through new eyes.

Now let's look at what happens when we do associate the historical with the spiritual, or when we describe spiritual experience in historical terms. We fight over which religion has the true god, the true savior, when other religions, especially non-historical ones, just might afford the same divine experience of Christianity. We fight over who has the right version of history. We fight over who has the right construction of history and imply that others cannot possibly have their own conversion experience because they have not got the right history book.

Is heaven a real place to you? How do people get there?

....... to provide us with faith, which can only be based on experience.

I will kinda agree with you, if you mean this to be a faith based on an expeirence of action. For instance, you can have faith in an automoble because it has started up 330 times in a row, and this will be 331. Or a chair because it heal to 350 lb man so it should hold a 100 lb woman. Not an experience based singalarly on feelings. Not the "burning in the busom" experience. I whole heartedly disagree with a faith in a personal feeling about something (anything).

From the descriptions of the Holy Spirit that I hear coming from Christians I talk with, this Holy Spirit, the non-historical spirit of the trinity, the one that convicts, sounds more right. I think Chrsitianity has the truth in it, but its a little confused.

The Holy spirit is historical in that it has been involved in man's History as long as God the Father and God the Son have been involved. The Bible has many examples of Theophanies and Christophanies, along with the "Spirit of God" being removed from people.

Are you a orthadox Christian? Do you adhere to any of the solas? Is your vocation a 'professional' vocation? (Doctor, lawer, indian chief, etc.)

Dinner time,

Regards,

Alan

[tgb_1974]

Alan,

I'll take your questions one at a time.

Thank you for taking the time and giving me a better explaination. I think I'm beginning to understand the POV you're coming from. Please correct me if I'm wrong.You're saying that some people can have the same 'conversion experience' with a diety and not call that diety - Jesus Christ?

Yes. Some people in other cultures may have this experience and not even know it as a deity. Some don't recognize this deity. Others believe a deity to be in their experience when it may not be there. (Like those who make a ritual sacred practice out of the experience of handling snakes). Still the one experience Christianity provides a language for is the forgivenss of sin mechanism which is a psychological experience of the mind necessary to experience happiness again. This usually involves humility, like in the story of Jesus we are taught that Jesus was a humble god, in some ways the god of humility, and involves death, as we are taught that Jesus died "for our sins", and that great suffering is necessary to aleviate guilt. One experiences this coming together of past and future, one leaves behind an "old self" or "old man of sin" and becomes a "new man", which will remain renewed forever, and experiences "eternity", past and future combined and trusts the transforming power to be present with them when they die. Nobody knows what happens after that. Not really anyway. But we hope that "after" we die that the same feeling of joy that we experienced in the moment we met God, or "Jesus" or "Nabu" will be present with us at our deaths.

I'll have to disagree with you if you're using the standard definition of equivocate - 1) to use equivocal language esp. with intent to deceive 2) to avoind committing oneself in what one says.

What I mean when I use "equivocate" is the word "is". Christians say that the Jesus they meet in their conversion experience IS the famous Jew. They equivocate "Jesus" and "the Historical Jesus" by saying "Jesus is the Historical Jesus." But identifying these two as identical is not appropriate since historical knowledge is not necessary for the experience to occur. But language is necessary to relate this experience to each other so we choose the vocabulary supplied in the Bible.

But Christianity gets it right by identifying the object of the experience as divine. It certainly counts as a god in my book. The god that is the transforming power of one's life, that gives hope for the future, that teaches us to be humble, that teaches us to endure suffering, that teaches us to care for our children, that shows us the mystery and wonder in human experience, especially in experiencing, that is, sharing love. Yep, if you've got a god to do that in your pantheon, or trinity, or whatever you've got then you're onto something. That is why I think Islam is going to have a hard time reforming itself with western culture (Christianity) in the Middle East. I think the Christian experience is irresistable, and that all people crave a saving grace, and the words to describe it. I don't think the Koran has the right stories in it, the right words in it, to use to describe it. So I think their in trouble. The Jews have been pretty good about denying the Historical Jesus over the last 2000 years. Maybe they too crave Christian experiences, but I think the Old Testament, Talmud, and Mishnah provide the Jews with a wealth of religions sayings and teachings that include forgiveness by "God".

The Christian conversion cannot be forced.

Agreed.

Can I copy some of this?

Sure! Why not!

Here's the most important part, because it is a hard part to understand in english because their is only one word that gets used, the word "feeling". The word "feeling" is meant to describe the grounds for faith, because we "feel" something in the moment of conversion, something emotional and passionate, but we also "feel" sick with the flu, or spontaneously angry, or other transient "feelings" that come and go. Of course we don't want to base our faith on "feelings" that come and go. We base our faith on a permanent "feeling", a very deep and sincere "feeling", a "feeling" so strong it can change our lives.

I will kinda agree with you, if you mean this to be a faith based on an expeirence of action. For instance, you can have faith in an automoble because it has started up 330 times in a row, and this will be 331. Or a chair because it heal to 350 lb man so it should hold a 100 lb woman. Not an experience based singalarly on feelings. Not the "burning in the busom" experience. I whole heartedly disagree with a faith in a personal feeling about something (anything).



Plus we must recognize that everything is a feeling, from the feeling of learning theory, to "what it feels like" to learn math, to "what it feels like" to learn "history", to "what it feels like to be forgiven", in that sense of the word.

Tom

[tgb_1974]

Is heaven a real place to you?

Supposedly heaven is realer than real, more real than everyday waking reality where we wash dishes, pay our bills, and try to get along. I don't know if you can get "more real" than consciousness.

How do people get there?

That's easy. Die.

So if you're asking that there is a reality "after" death despite the subject having no body, despite all the mechanisms that make biological consciousness a reality, which contstrain us in space and time. But at death we may experience something like disembodiment, where our minds are not constrained by time, some kind of "eternal reality". Now the big debate begins.

Do we have bodies after we die or not? Do we get new bodies? Does our spirit, in this case, defined as "memory" get transported into a new body so that we *remember* our old lives on earth as an embodied individual. In this case heaven could be "temporally eternal". That is physical bodies allow for time to exist and we would experience time the same way we do on earth.

OR, do we experience a disembodied "reality" allowing for heaven to be "timelessly eternal" which is a timeframe God supposed exists in, where we might "meet God".

[tgb_1974]

Death is and always will be mysterious. There are necessarily going to be things that we can't know about it until we experience it.

But the Christian comes away from his conversion experience believing that his exchange with the deity, his new self, will survive death and experience an afterlife. Thus these two moments, conversion and death, are related, and are said to be "similar". The conversion experience is an anolog to death. Thus the death that occurs at the end of one's life is called "the second death" in Christianity since they have already experienced something like death when they converted and were "born again".

So supposedly the Christian experience tells us something about the afterlife. It tells us that the afterlife is joyous just like being born again. So there is hope that the afterlife, what we can know about it, will be a pleasant experience.

The opposite of this has always been "hell" which is a negative experience. I think people can experience "hell on earth" when they experience anxiety and terror. I imagine hell is a panic state. If we die anxiously, concerned that the afterlife will not be a pleasant experience because we have not experienced conversion in this life, or concerned that our guilt will follow us into the afterlife, having not expunged it, and that we will not get another chance to expiate our guilt, and that our guilt will send us to "hell" - then I think hell is some kind of eternal panic accompanied by a sense of "no exit" or "no way out".

But christianity teaches, at least modern Christianity, that, the individual life is simply terminated without torture.

The point is we don't know. But the Christian experience may tell us something since it seems related to "eternity"

[tgb_1974]

Sorry. Got called away a couple times.

My hunch is that there is an afterlife and how we live our lives matters. That's exactly what the Christians say so I guess I must be doing pretty good. But what that afterlife feels like I have no idea.

[ajohnson]

Tom,

Had a nice long, complete reply, but alas my computer burbed and it's all gone. So I'll just summerize.

We're talking in circles.

The historical Jesus is the only way for our sins to be forgiven. The Jesus of the Bible is the only person qualified to take away the sins of the people.

I agree with you that it isn't the name "Jesus Christ", it the person of Jesus Christ. The second person of the trinity. Heaven is a real place, not something we might hope to go, it's a very real place - and so is hell. And the only worldview that is a reflection of reality is the Chrsitian worldview. That is the problem with all other religions (Hinduism, Buddism, Islam, New Age, wicca, etc)

The conversion experience can only happen if the human involved realizes and agrees with God that he (that is the human) is the one responsible for the sinning against God, not the other way around. It's the human that breaks communion not God. God didn't sin against us, we sinned against Him. We must humble ourselves; He already humbled Himself by becoming man and taking the punishment from God the Father for all the sins of mankind.

Knowing the historical Jesus is important because we must be clear on what Jesus we're talking about and it's the Jesus of the Bible that will bring salvation.

Acts 4-12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.

No one has to believe the Bible nor the message in the Bible, but that doesn't make it any less of the truth.

I must get to work. It's be a pleasure talking with you.

Best regards,

Alan

[tgb_1974]

Now you are speaking in terms of the Historical Jesus...

The historical Jesus is the only way for our sins to be forgiven

So what you are saying here is not just that historical knowledge of the "real" Jesus Christ is necessary in order for true "conversion" to occur. Historical Knowledge is not learned after conversion, but must be known before it. At the very least the initiate must have a few basic terms to describe the experience like "I invited Jesus into my heart" and know how it feels to have the spirit of humility and care imbibe their very being.

Many times historical knowledge about a famous jew paints a bigger picture. Unfortunately its the wrong picture. It says reality is essentially Historical. Well Historical Reality is not the reality I live in. I live in the living, breathing, eating, working to survive 9-5 world. I live in a world of experiences, call them emotional, call them psychological, but they are all my experiences. And some of my experiences I assign more value because they had a touch of divinity in them, a giggle, a smile, a hand reaching out to help, and certainly the ones I consider divine because they changed my whole worldview like self-discipline, regret and thanks, loving our families.

This world of experience grounds my religious views, not the ability to articulate the experience in historical terms and argue over what counts as divine. The divine is found in life, so is the sacred, to deny these things is to be an infedel. But so is mystery, misery, and chaos found in life.

Protestantism teaches that this Historical God was also our example. He exemplified good behavior, and thus bequeathed divinity to good behavior. This is a very positive message. Theological Christianity insists they can posit a philosophical basis for Yahweh and Jesus by essentially making them into Neo-platonism since Augustine. But the Trinity formed by the Jewish YHWH (The ONE), and the Jewish Jesus, and a non-descript "spirit" had to account for the bad behavior of the Jewish god, and never accounts for why the god came to earth and then had to leave again. It's like our modern moral intuition tells us that Yahweh's behavior is wrong and the morality of such a Yahweh becomes primitive. Well I believe in the divine as the basis for morality, not this deity's behavior. Christians claim this argument for themselves, that their god grounds morality, but they claim the historical Yahweh as their God. They have confused the definition in "GOD", one morally ideal, and the other bad historical examples. Well there is no reason saying that one god cannot still exist. And I choose to ground my morality in a god of pure goodness, if that happens to be the non-historical, ideal one then so be it.

Historicity was never important. Now its supremely important to tell if you've got the right god or not. We readers of history have to face the future ourselves, forge a new history, take responsibility for the direction of history. We cannot rely on Yahweh to ensure a peaceful world, nor Allah, nor Jesus, or historical knowledge in general to be good be good to each other.

The spirit of joy and appreciation that indwells in your "heart", known by the christian convert, that turns the convert to look toward the future happily, that sounds a little better. But as we agreed, historical knowledge is not necessary for this to occurr, and it happens in millions of ways, in millions of people everyday.

To understand christianity one must have experienced "salvation" themselves. The experience of being born-again is critical to understanding this kind of Christianity and thus grounds the divine in experience, in existence. This existential christianity is essentially correct. But this concept cannot be approached historically. It cannot be theorized nor learned by reading ancient biography, but it can be recognized in the behavior of the Modern Jesus, death and resurrection are indeed described there. But Christians recognize this in the mythos of the story, not by proving that the mythos was real history. This Historical Christianity is essential incorrect.

Either the historical knowledge is apriori or aposteriori. If you claim it is apriori knowledge it cannot be learned through induction. Historical proof is essentialy inductive, and therefore the details learned are unnecessary, their historicity is unnecessary.

We have co-opted historical terms to describe an essentially psychological experience. Sorting this out can be very difficult.

[Mr. Mulatto]

I think what ajohnson is trying to portray is that when you repent of your sins, and confess that Jesus is Lord, you are accepting the grace offered by the Christ in space/time/history. You don't need to know everything about Jesus prior to the "conversion experience" as you put it, but a recognition of WHO you are turning to is very crucial. Jesus of history, of time, HAS to be the savior, because why would a God outside of time have any reason to hang his Son on a cross for people in time?

Plus, history is also important for OUR DAILY walk with the Lord. It is the reflection of God's past blessings in the OT or NT, and the example of Jesus, and the words of Paul, etc. that give the encouragement and the confidence to press on for our eternal reward as Christians!Hope this helps.

_Matthew

[tgb_1974]

I think it is important to recognize that a divine power has indeed entered the individual and inspired them, transformed them. But we do not need to identify this power as the Jesus of history, we can simply recognize its divinity. Why tie it to history?

The story of Jesus is a big debate. Was a god hung on the cross? The way we go about "proving" this to ourselves is inductive. Therefore this history lesson, even if it was settled, could not provide the certainty called "faith" a christian posesses post-conversion.

History lessons cannot lead to conversion. Both sides agree. Why? Because the type of knowledge learned by reading history is categorically different from the type of knowledge gained from having the christian conversion experience.

You are right that we should try to identify divine grace when it appear. It would be nice to have a word for it. "Jesus" works for christianity. I invited Jesus into my heart. But the historical entanglements are not only unnecessary but distracting since now it becomes possible to argue over their version of history.

I would not consider the reflection of the past found in the OT as a "blessing" but problematic. It is obviously problematic since the Jews claim it for themselves and deny christianity. It is further problematic since the god found there, Yahweh, bears little resemblence to the Neo-platonic/Christian omnibenevolent god.