Am I a Christian?

[Alien]

That certainly is a danger for anyone whose education leads them to a great deal of exciting knowledge they're just bursting to share with the world. The sin of pride is pretty darn seditious. It's something I have to guard myself very carefully against, even more so after having gone to seminary.

To lighten the mood a little, and to make a point too ....

When I attended my first Disciple class (this involves 30 odd weeks of Bible study and discussion) at church I was pleased to find that the leader was our Associate Pastor, who was currently attending Seminary. I looked forward to hearing, though her, what her Professors had to say about various Bible passages. I was much less pleased when, as part of her introductory remarks, she said something like "Everyone's opinion is welcome, and no one's opinion is any more valid than any one else's". I suppose she was intending to encourage everyone to speak up in a friendly atmosphere, but I responded "Well, if after a year at Seminary your opinion isn't better than mine then you've wasted your money!".

She wasn't too pleased as I recall, but I was quite serious. Her Professors, and to a lesser extent she, should have a better understanding of the Bible than I, and I should happily accept that as an opportunity to learn. After all, they have spent a lifetime gaining their knowledge.

[Vigilante]

And I find the smarter you get, the more your arguments sound like:

"well this varies from person to person..."
"well different schools of thought think..."
"some people believe that...."

And pretty soon you've lost all argument to basically saying "some people think different, therefore you can't be right." Which isn't really an argument at all.

What I need from a conversation is not declarations that some people differ. What I need is to quote the text in question, see what it's saying in context, and see if it fits with the rest of revelation. It isn't rocket science, I don't need 4 years of seminary to understand what Galatians 5 is telling me.
I don't some "Greek expert" fresh out of college mimicking his prof to say that "I am the way, the truth and the life and nobody comes to the father except by me" actually might mean "the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain" if you consider recent documents and the fact that thousands of scholars and language geniuses didn't get it right after hundreds of attempts and only the grand scholars of 2008 can really educate us on the meaning of the text.

If years of studying ancient history and Greek and all that doesn't bring any more understanding except "some people think different", then it probably hasn't helped much, of course some people think different, who gives a rip about that? Let's deal with the text. That's all I'm saying. The text says something is necessary for salvation, then it is. Looking at it from a hyper-elitist-intellectual viewpoint just makes everything muddy and confusing, unnecessarily so. God intended to give us his revelation, so how many more thousands of years until we have some elitists who will grant us peasants to know the truth of it? When will they stop telling us to quit thinking we have it right?
Yes many people have differing views on text, but somebody is right and somebody is wrong, or both are wrong, we need to figure out who, not drop our hands, accept differing viewpoints and pretend all is dandy.

Whoops, bed time.


Peace

[Tercel]

If years of studying ancient history and Greek and all that doesn't bring any more understanding except "some people think different", then it probably hasn't helped much, of course some people think different, who gives a rip about that?

Of course it brings far more understanding than that. I have firm views on numerous issues as a result of my studies. Basically, I think your view is wrong and my view is right but that you wouldn't understand the reasons or the evidence so I'm not going to try to explain as I'm having enough difficult trying to help you understand basic principles like the possibility of alternative readings of texts.

Looking at it from a hyper-elitist-intellectual viewpoint just makes everything muddy and confusing, unnecessarily so.

I read that sentence as saying "logic and evidence just makes stuff too hard and my brain hurt, so let's not use them". On the one hand you demand that I prove to you that your view is wrong and on the other hand you demand that I not use the very logic and evidence that would prove it, and thus we go round in circles.

God intended to give us his revelation, so how many more thousands of years until we have some elitists who will grant us peasants to know the truth of it?

People have always argued over what passages in the bible meant - Jesus, the Sadducees, the Pharisees etc all had different views, 2 Peter warns that many people were misunderstanding Paul's writings. If people who lived at the time were misunderstanding what Paul wrote, what makes you think that you 2000 years later reading some dubious English translation of his writings should be free from misunderstanding? But apparently, you seem to believe God intended to give you his revelation so you can just read it and believe it without worrying about those silly intellectuals - who, incidentally, you are entirely reliant on for the English translation you're relying on.

When will they stop telling us to quit thinking we have it right?

As soon as you cease the practice of taking particular passages and assuming that your understanding of them is correct. You're welcome to believe doctrines that are extremely widely attested throughout the bible as that minimizes interpretive error, however the interpretation of any given particular passage is alway fraught with complex difficulties which you won't understand if you haven't studied the issues. Just because an English translation looks clear it does not at all mean the underlying Greek is (in fact, usually when the Greek is entirely unclear it provides fertile ground for translators to read their own ideas of what it might be saying into the text, eg Rom 3:24-26).

Yes many people have differing views on text, but somebody is right and somebody is wrong, or both are wrong, we need to figure out who, not drop our hands, accept differing viewpoints and pretend all is dandy.

I agree. That involves investigating different viewpoints and comparing them all against the evidence. Sometimes one viewpoint clearly has more evidence. Sometimes more than one viewpoint seems equally plausible. A lot of time all the viewpoints have some pros and some cons.

To take one example, Leon Morris has a chapter in his book The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross that deals with about a dozen different interpretations scholars have proposed of John's statement that Jesus is "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world". The question is, what "Lamb" is being referred to - is it a sacrificial lamb, or the scapegoat, etc? After analyzing the evidence he concludes that about half the views are unlikely, but of the remaining half no one view is more likely than the others and each have their pros and cons.

To take another example, in the same book Morris deals with the interpretation of the word "hilasterion" in Romans 3:25 and argues against scholars who said it means "expiation" (cleansing of sin) and instead argues it means "propitiation" (appeasing wrath). Perhaps the most popular view of its meaning among scholars today is that it refers to the "Mercy Seat" which was part of the ark of the Covenant. Personally having studied the matter myself I believe it means "peace gift" which puts me reasonably similar to Morris' view on the meaning of the word - although my interpretation how the word is being used by Paul in Rom 3:25 is dead against Morris' (he thinks Paul's saying Jesus propitiated God on behalf of humans, I think (in agreement with James Dunn, I believe) that Paul's saying Jesus was a peace gift to humans from God).

[sage]

Is Jesus the only way to God?

I believe you have to decipher the implication of the word ‘way’ first. If it were to be interpreted as “No one comes to the father but through me” or ‘The Lord’s Prayer’ or “Do this in memory of me” then it would be obvious isn’t it? There is but one way. But if we see ‘way’ as a method to enter heaven, Jesus has implicitly revealed that the path to heaven is “long and winding” suggesting a variant of ways.

In understanding this manner, much of the irrelevant issue could have been avoided.

Yours in Christ.

[Sparko]

long and winding?

he says it is narrow and few shall find it.

[sage]

Well Jesus did not exactly mention the “long and winding path”. I did. Jesus was talking about righteousness that should be straight and leads to the narrow gate, which we have to strive to enter. So I introduced “long” to signify we have to undergo several tests and “winding” as we have to meet several temptations.

[Sparko]

Well Jesus did not exactly mention the “long and winding path”. I did. Jesus was talking about righteousness that should be straight and leads to the narrow gate, which we have to strive to enter. So I introduced “long” to signify we have to undergo several tests and “winding” as we have to meet several temptations.

you said:

Jesus has implicitly revealed that the path to heaven is “long and winding” suggesting a variant of ways.

but now you admit he didn't. Those were your words.

Jesus said the path to the Father was very straightforward.

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

Seems pretty simple to me. No long windy path. Believe in Jesus and be saved. Don't believe and be condemned.

Matthew 7: 13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

[sage]

That was my exact point. If you see the “way” as “righteousness” then it is the only ‘one way’. But if you look at the idea of striving and therefore “only a few find it” you come to ‘it”. Now what is ‘it’? It is not ‘heaven’ but the ‘narrow gate’. How we ‘enter the gate’ is the big question or how we ‘find the gate’ to be precise. In another words, when we find the gate, what to we have to do? Is it still ‘one way’?

The clue I envisage is “For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction”. It is about the ‘gate’ and the ‘road’. Where is the ‘road’ and how do we enter the ‘gate’? Luke 13:24 said, “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” It is NOT one ‘way’ after all. I am pretty sure that the ‘road’ is righteousness but what is ‘strive’?

[Sparko]

That was my exact point. If you see the “way” as “righteousness” then it is the only ‘one way’. But if you look at the idea of striving and therefore “only a few find it” you come to ‘it”. Now what is ‘it’? It is not ‘heaven’ but the ‘narrow gate’. How we ‘enter the gate’ is the big question or how we ‘find the gate’ to be precise. In another words, when we find the gate, what to we have to do? Is it still ‘one way’?

The clue I envisage is “For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction”. It is about the ‘gate’ and the ‘road’. Where is the ‘road’ and how do we enter the ‘gate’? Luke 13:24 said, “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” It is NOT one ‘way’ after all. I am pretty sure that the ‘road’ is righteousness but what is ‘strive’?

you are making less sense the more you try to "explain" your comments.

jesus was very clear. If you believe in him you are saved. If you don't you are condemned.

righteousness has NOTHING to do with it. You don't have to strive for righteousness to be saved. Nobody is righteous except God. You can't earn your salvation by being righteous. it is by FAITH you are saved, NOT by works.

So you don't go down any road of righteousness. You simply enter the gate of Jesus. He is THE WAY. He is the GATE. Believe and be saved.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

[sage]

You are making less sense the more you try to "explain" your comments.

Ok I put it in a very simple way. You accept Jesus and therefore you are saved. So Luke 13:24 is meaningless when saying “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” It showed that NOT all enters the gate. Maybe you are more enlightened as to explain why Luke urged us to strive. Your conclusion is that ‘If you accept Jesus then therefore there is no need to strive’ but Luke STILL warned us to strive. Then again, how to you accept Jesus? Is faith alone sufficient?

Was it easy for Peter to be crucified upside down? Or the other apostles to be butchered or crucified? The Apostles accepted Jesus but it was not easy for them either.

When did the idea “it is by FAITH you are saved” determines men’s destiny? If it is so, then the Ten Commandments would just become a window dressing or maybe you completely forget about the commandments in favour of the idea of FAITH? I am more confused by your definition of being ‘saved by FAITH’ than Luke’s warning to strive.

[Tercel]

Jesus said the path to the Father was very straightforward.

18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

• Edited by a Moderator •

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Adrift

Hello Tercel. Theology 201 is not the appropriate place to argue for works-based salvation. Please have a look at the guidelines for this sub-forum:
While this area is for the discussion of...doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. ...there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101. Theists who wish to discuss...issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Thank you

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Sparko]

Ok I put it in a very simple way. You accept Jesus and therefore you are saved. So Luke 13:24 is meaningless when saying “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” It showed that NOT all enters the gate. Maybe you are more enlightened as to explain why Luke urged us to strive. Your conclusion is that ‘If you accept Jesus then therefore there is no need to strive’ but Luke STILL warned us to strive. Then again, how to you accept Jesus? Is faith alone sufficient?

He was speaking about those who were NOT saved. They were to enter through the narrow gate (Jesus). Jesus was speaking (not Luke) and he was saying that there are NOT many ways to be saved. There are many ways (wide is the path to destruction) to NOT be saved. but there is only ONE way to be saved and not many find it. That way is Jesus. He is the Way, the Truth and the Light.

and yes, faith alone is sufficient. You may strive to be like Jesus because you love him and want to honor him, but you don't do it to be saved. You are saved by faith alone. good works are the RESULT of being saved, NOT the means of being saved. Now if someone were to claim to be saved and NOT want to do good works then he should examine if he is truly saved, because true salvation results in good works. You can't claim to be a follower of Jesus and then just ignore everything he says. But the works do not save you. And there are no other paths to reach salvation. Just faith in Jesus.

Romans 9 even contrasts faith with works for salvation and how believing in works is a stumbling stone.

30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

Eph 2:8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Was it easy for Peter to be crucified upside down? Or the other apostles to be butchered or crucified? The Apostles accepted Jesus but it was not easy for them either.

what are you talking about???

When did the idea “it is by FAITH you are saved” determines men’s destiny? If it is so, then the Ten Commandments would just become a window dressing or maybe you completely forget about the commandments in favour of the idea of FAITH? I am more confused by your definition of being ‘saved by FAITH’ than Luke’s warning to strive.

It was always so. No one was ever saved by following the Law. They were saved by faith. Read Hebrews.

Hebrews 10:
1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. ...

38But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him." 39But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.

[mossrose]

Well Jesus did not exactly mention the “long and winding path”. I did. Jesus was talking about righteousness that should be straight and leads to the narrow gate, which we have to strive to enter. So I introduced “long” to signify we have to undergo several tests and “winding” as we have to meet several temptations.

Bingo!

This is exactly the problem! People just add whatever they like to Scripture and then say, "that's what it really means". And no wonder confusion and chaos abound and everybody thinks their own way is right, regardless of what Scripture REALLY says!

[Tercel]

You are saved by faith alone. good works are the RESULT of being saved, NOT the means of being saved.

Are you aware that such a view was invented by the Reformers of 500 years ago? Throughout the rest of Christian history it has been firmly believed that good works were crucial as a MEANS to salvation.

The bible states this clearly also. If you actually go through the New Testament and consider the passages that speak of final judgment in any level of detail (ie passages that shed some sort of detailed light on how the final judgment is going to work) you will find there are about 30 and that they pretty much unanimously clearly depict final judgment taking place according to people's deeds not beliefs. Looking at those passages is one of the simplest ways of seeing the unbiblicalness of the Reformation paradigm of salvation.

Romans 9 even contrasts faith with works for salvation and how believing in works is a stumbling stone.

Eph 2:8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Hebrews 10:

It's interesting, but unsurprising, that you choose several of the most difficult and unclear passages in the bible to use as proof-texts. One of the things I found interesting when I first started seriously diving into interpretative difficulties of the bible was just how much key proof-texts of the Reformation paradigm of salvation coincided with passages that were beset by more than average levels of interpretative difficulties. Reformation readings time and again rely on dubious interpretations of a relatively small number of unclear passages and ignore numerous clear passages elsewhere that directly contradict their ideas.

When Paul critiques "works" he is talking about "works of the law [Torah]" which refers to the belief of many Israelites at his time that living your life by the customs native to Israel rather than following Greek customs was a key part of being an Israelite and being part of God's people. Paul attacks this view, arguing that what matters is faithfulness to God not what customs people follow - Paul believes that Greek converts should not be made to stop following Greek customs and adopt Israelite ones. It is totally and utterly invalid to take Paul's critique of the value of works of Torah and read it as a critique of works-based salvation: Paul clearly, and repeated, asserts his belief in works based salvation. That is part of the reason he is so against the necessity of Torah-following - for if what matters to God is whether an individual is good (ie loving toward others) or evil (ie hurts others) then obviously the cultural customs that a particular person happens to follow are entirely irrelevant.

Unless you recognize Paul's distinction between "(moral, good) works" and "works (of the Torah)" it makes nonsense of much of his writings. For example, in Galatians he spends the first several chapters repeatedly attacking the importance of works of Torah, and then in the last couple of chapters repeatedly endorsing the importance of good works for salvation.

[sage]

[QUOTE]He was speaking about those who were NOT

saved.

Oh really? He was talk to you and me!

It was always so. No one was ever saved by following the Law. They were saved by faith. Read Hebrews.

You should better define the term ‘saved’ to make it easier.

The Epistle to the Hebrews touched the idea of creation. It showed that God by His Son, Jesus, mad the worlds

Hebrew 1 – 2
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

So the Epistle suggested superiority of the New Testament Revelation by the Son over Old Testament Revelation by the prophets (Hebrews 1:1-4)

It then proves and explains from the Scriptures the superiority of this New Covenant over the Old by the comparison of the Son with the angels as mediators of the Old Covenant (1:5-2:18), with Moses and Josue as the founders of the Old Covenant (3:1-4:16), and, finally, by opposing the high-priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedech to the Levitical priesthood after the order of Aaron

No way did it show how we are saved or how Moses was saved. The idea if being ‘saved’ is an individual perception of how one relates himself to Jesus or to God.

I can see one thing that is very clear about the idea of ‘it is by FAITH you are saved’. It is selfish because it desires only itself.

Was it easy for Peter to be crucified upside down? Or the other apostles to be butchered or crucified? The Apostles accepted Jesus but it was not easy for them either.

what are you talking about???

It is understandable why you will never understand what I have said.