Christians: Where do you draw the line?

[sojourner]

I cannot answer this question properly because I don't know the answer.
This is my view now, I am unsure when it became my view, maybe it was always my view ? I don't know.

Let me help you out here. God becomes trapped by scripture when scripture is elevated to a place it does not belong, and becomes the only way in which God is revealed. A literalistic treatment of scripture seems to be cogent to this process. We trap God into being revealed only where we want God to be revealed.

 

[Dunemeister]

So let's just let people hang on their crosses, to serve as an example of perseverance. No, wait! Let's go further and find ways to hang others on crosses, like, oh, I don't know...German Jews, blacks, women, homosexuals, desperate women who have abortions, substance abusers, indians, Haitians, Hispanics who come to us for work and food, South Africans, etc. ad nauseum, in order to help bring about God's will of human suffering.

None of this follows from "It was God's will to bruise the suffering servant." The crucifixion was a unique event that had a particular importance in salvation history.

I guess Jesus healed people and fed people so that he could be the "rebellious child" of God, eliminating the suffering he saw around him. I suppose battered wives should stay in their marriages and "suffer for Jesus."

Again, none of this follows.

Yes. We suffer. but I think it's a mistake to provide an easy answer for a difficult problem by just saying that "it's God's will." I don't think we should expect to suffer, just because we're believers. Plenty of non-believers suffer, too. That doesn't seem to be a defining paradigm, unique to Christians. What does seem to be a paradigm unique to Christians, is that, when we suffer, God stands with us and can be found within our suffering, not as a cause, but as an Advocate of our diginity and our humanity and our divinity.

There's nothing "easy" about affirming suffering as part of God's will for his people. It is also true that God stands with us in our suffering.

The point, my dear Theophilus, of the crucifixion, is that human beings can be horribly cruel, especially when their own ego is at stake. So cruel, in fact, that our cruelty spills over out of humanity and affects God. Why? Because God loves us and has dared to enter into a relationship with us, and remain steadfast to us in spite of our cruelty. The point is not that the cruelty was necessary in order to effect salvation. The point is that salvation was effected in spite of cruelty. We don't have hope of escaping suffering, but we have the hope that God will not abandon us when we suffer.

Can't argue with that.

 

[sojourner]

None of this follows from "It was God's will to bruise the suffering servant." The crucifixion was a unique event that had a particular importance in salvation history.

O course it does. if it was "God's will to bruise the suffering servant," because he suffered, then it must be God's will to bruise us, because we are bruised.

It was not God's will for Jesus to suffer. Nor is it God's will for any of us to suffer. My examples serve as absurd ways of thinking that can arise from this kind of warped theology.

There's nothing "easy" about affirming suffering as part of God's will for his people. It is also true that God stands with us in our suffering.

It's an easy answer because it circumvents the whole problem of why we suffer. "We suffer simply because it's God's will for us to suffer." It doesn't answer the question of theodicy at all, though, which is the real issue here.

 

[peaceful]

How can it be nothing added, nothing omitted? It has been rewritten by christians to cover up their evil. the bible as we know it today is not the real teachings. perhaps you need to travel and discover the old testaments and scrolls for enlightenment.

Christians are people who follow Christ's teachings in tHe bible, NOTHING ADDED ... NOTHING OMITTED.

 

[Dunemeister]

O course it does. if it was "God's will to bruise the suffering servant," because he suffered, then it must be God's will to bruise us, because we are bruised.

All that follows is that in order to save the world, the servant had to suffer. God appoints the ends and the means. We as Christians suffer because we continue to play a role in redemptive history. As we play that role, the world lashes out at us and we suffer. The world as a whole suffers because it is enslaved to sin. The fact that the suffering of Christ was God's will does not entail that God wants us to inflict suffering on anyone. Just the opposite. Christ is our model of patient redemptive suffering. We are to endure suffering for the sake of the world. We are not to lash out or return evil for evil. Instead, we are to work for good, and when we are punished by the world for it, rejoice. And this is the will of God for his people.

It was not God's will for Jesus to suffer. Nor is it God's will for any of us to suffer. My examples serve as absurd ways of thinking that can arise from this kind of warped theology.

Yep. Isiaiah's pretty warped. As is Jesus. "If it be your will, let this cup pass for me. But if not, let your will be done."

It's an easy answer because it circumvents the whole problem of why we suffer. "We suffer simply because it's God's will for us to suffer." It doesn't answer the question of theodicy at all, though, which is the real issue here.

I think it does answer the theodicy question. The purpose of suffering (in general) is redemptive. This does not answer a particular person's question about their particular suffering. But then, nobody can answer that. The bible only gives us the big picture about suffering. The main point of the New Testament is that God stands with his people in their suffering and provides them the means to endure it. He also "rewards" some suffering now (providing a good issue out of the affliction) or later (rewards in heaven).

 

[sojourner]

All that follows is that in order to save the world, the servant had to suffer. God appoints the ends and the means. We as Christians suffer because we continue to play a role in redemptive history. As we play that role, the world lashes out at us and we suffer. The world as a whole suffers because it is enslaved to sin. The fact that the suffering of Christ was God's will does not entail that God wants us to inflict suffering on anyone. Just the opposite. Christ is our model of patient redemptive suffering. We are to endure suffering for the sake of the world. We are not to lash out or return evil for evil. Instead, we are to work for good, and when we are punished by the world for it, rejoice. And this is the will of God for his people.

And how does this speak to the kind of suffering that happens by way of natural causes -- disease, starvation, loss from storm, volcano, earthquake, flood? Or are those kinds of suffering not "real" suffering? what do those kinds of suffering have to do with "being punished by the world?" Please tell me you're not one of those "this is God's divine retribution" people. Your theory does not address suffering, except in a limited way.

Yep. Isiaiah's pretty warped. As is Jesus. "If it be your will, let this cup pass for me. But if not, let your will be done."

Isaiah didn't say that it had to be that way. He said that it would be that way. Big difference.
You're misinterpreting the words from Gethsemane. Of course Jesus didn't want to suffer. had he thought that it was necessary, he wouldn't have asked. the question is: Necessary, or inevitable? it was not necessary in that the suffering, itself, played an indispensible role in salvation. It was inevitable, though, because human beings abhor a change in power. Jesus represented that change. Because he could not back off from the gospel ministry, he suffered as a result. The suffering is regrettable and unnecessary, but unavoidable, because humans are who humans are.

I think it does answer the theodicy question. The purpose of suffering (in general) is redemptive. This does not answer a particular person's question about their particular suffering. But then, nobody can answer that. The bible only gives us the big picture about suffering. The main point of the New Testament is that God stands with his people in their suffering and provides them the means to endure it. He also "rewards" some suffering now (providing a good issue out of the affliction) or later (rewards in heaven).

Theodicy does seek to answer the individuals' questions. This quotation is simply cheap, superficial theology. You would do well to bone up on some of the liberation theologians.

 

[Dunemeister]

And how does this speak to the kind of suffering that happens by way of natural causes -- disease, starvation, loss from storm, volcano, earthquake, flood? Or are those kinds of suffering not "real" suffering? what do those kinds of suffering have to do with "being punished by the world?" Please tell me you're not one of those "this is God's divine retribution" people. Your theory does not address suffering, except in a limited way.

I recognize the problem my perspective has in addressing these sorts of ills. But Romans 8 tells us that the cosmos "groans and travails in birth pangs awaiting the revelation of the sons of God." Traditionally, this has been understood as implying that natural disasters are a consequence of sin -- again, writ large. This is not to say that a particular person or a particular nation is responsible for the floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, or what-have-you. Rather, the phenomenon of natural disasters occurs because the whole natural order, including that of humankind's natural, joyful submission to God, has been upended by humankind's original and continual rebellion. Humans are God's representatives on earth, called to bring his loving dominion to all of creation. The cosmos was created with that order in mind. Having rebelled against that order, the universe is "subject to futility" (Rom 8 again) until such time as humankind is fully redeemed (a guaranteed eventuality).

Of course, this broad picture needs filling out, and I am aware of some of the problems that attend it. But its greatest virtue is that it is informed by scripture.

And what does scripture have to say about our response to those who mourn? It says we are to act in compassion -- identify with and help those who suffer.

Isaiah didn't say that it had to be that way. He said that it would be that way. Big difference.
You're misinterpreting the words from Gethsemane. Of course Jesus didn't want to suffer. had he thought that it was necessary, he wouldn't have asked. the question is: Necessary, or inevitable? it was not necessary in that the suffering, itself, played an indispensible role in salvation. It was inevitable, though, because human beings abhor a change in power. Jesus represented that change. Because he could not back off from the gospel ministry, he suffered as a result. The suffering is regrettable and unnecessary, but unavoidable, because humans are who humans are.

Isiaiah said it was God's will. If that doesn't mean it had to happen that way, then there's no way in English to say that it must happen that way.

I'm not misinterpreting Gethsemane, at least if words haven't lost their meaning. You are imposing your theology on the text, not letting the text inform your theology. Put your theology aside and simply read the text in context, and you can't help but be impressed with how Jesus is wrestling with the will of God. This will of God for Jesus was terrible and terrifying, and Jesus needed the Holy Spirit to enable him to endure the suffering. He didn't want it, and he asked for a way around it. But if there was no other way, then "thy will be done."

Theodicy does seek to answer the individuals' questions. This quotation is simply cheap, superficial theology. You would do well to bone up on some of the liberation theologians.

Yes, theodicy does seek to answer these questions, but sometimes there simply isn't any. And the response of the Christian is to identify with the sufferer. Take compassion and mourn with those who mourn. If that's cheap and superficial, so be it.

 

[sojourner]

I recognize the problem my perspective has in addressing these sorts of ills. But Romans 8 tells us that the cosmos "groans and travails in birth pangs awaiting the revelation of the sons of God." Traditionally, this has been understood as implying that natural disasters are a consequence of sin -- again, writ large. This is not to say that a particular person or a particular nation is responsible for the floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, or what-have-you. Rather, the phenomenon of natural disasters occurs because the whole natural order, including that of humankind's natural, joyful submission to God, has been upended by humankind's original and continual rebellion. Humans are God's representatives on earth, called to bring his loving dominion to all of creation. The cosmos was created with that order in mind. Having rebelled against that order, the universe is "subject to futility" (Rom 8 again) until such time as humankind is fully redeemed (a guaranteed eventuality).

Of course, this broad picture needs filling out, and I am aware of some of the problems that attend it. But its greatest virtue is that it is informed by scripture.

That natural disasters can be blamed on human sin is preposterous. It is not informed by scripture, but by a flawed understanding of scripture.

Isiaiah said it was God's will. If that doesn't mean it had to happen that way, then there's no way in English to say that it must happen that way.

OK. God's will that it would happen that way, because God wanted Jesus to be steadfast in his message, in spite of the known consequences of human sin: crucifixion. Not in order to effect creucifixion.

I'm not misinterpreting Gethsemane, at least if words haven't lost their meaning. You are imposing your theology on the text, not letting the text inform your theology. Put your theology aside and simply read the text in context, and you can't help but be impressed with how Jesus is wrestling with the will of God. This will of God for Jesus was terrible and terrifying, and Jesus needed the Holy Spirit to enable him to endure the suffering. He didn't want it, and he asked for a way around it. But if there was no other way, then "thy will be done."

Of course Jesus didn't want to die. And he knew that fulfilling God's will would lead to his being crucified. But there's nothing about the text that assumes that God's will was for Jesus to die -- only to follow through, by remaining true to his ministry.

Yes, theodicy does seek to answer these questions, but sometimes there simply isn't any. And the response of the Christian is to identify with the sufferer. Take compassion and mourn with those who mourn. If that's cheap and superficial, so be it.

Theodicy doesn't always seek to provide answers. Theodicy does always seek to enter into a process of asking where God is found in suffering. By providing an easy of answer of "It's God's will for us to suffer" is to provide an answer that theodicy doesn't ask for. It curtails the very process of seeking that theodicy was designed to facilitate.

 

[Dunemeister]

That natural disasters can be blamed on human sin is preposterous. It is not informed by scripture, but by a flawed understanding of scripture.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. You haven't demonstrated how my understanding of scripture is faulty except to declaim so.

OK. God's will that it would happen that way, because God wanted Jesus to be steadfast in his message, in spite of the known consequences of human sin: crucifixion. Not in order to effect creucifixion.

Jesus announced no message from Gethsemane forward. So what was he doing? In Mark, Jesus is reported to have said "The Son of Man has not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." Jesus knew early on that it was his purpose, destiny, and vocation to suffer crucifixion. He warned his followers to "take up your cross" because that was the likely result of following him. Death and suffering are integral to God's plan of redemption. And in particular, the crucifixion was part of it. It was God's will that Jesus suffer crucifixion.

Of course Jesus didn't want to die. And he knew that fulfilling God's will would lead to his being crucified. But there's nothing about the text that assumes that God's will was for Jesus to die -- only to follow through, by remaining true to his ministry.

Well, that's just it. The whole point of Jesus' ministry was his death for sin. He was, as John the Baptist said, "the lamb of God." As the lamb was sacrificed in payment for Israel's sins on the Day of Atonement, so Jesus was to be sacrificed in payment for the world's sins on the cross.

Theodicy doesn't always seek to provide answers. Theodicy does always seek to enter into a process of asking where God is found in suffering. By providing an easy of answer of "It's God's will for us to suffer" is to provide an answer that theodicy doesn't ask for. It curtails the very process of seeking that theodicy was designed to facilitate.

You raise an excellent point about theodicy here. It's important to ask where God is found in one's suffering. But part of that is the (admittedly extremely general) points that (a) the cosmos suffers as a result of humankind's sin and the consequent disordering of creation; (b) suffering is part of what God calls his people to undergo; (c) God identifies with the victim. If you seek to go more specific than this, for example by asking why a person is suffering a particular evil, there's frequently no answer. But in general, the victim can have confidence knowing that God identifies with him/her in their suffering.

But it's also true that God identifies with the perpetrators of suffering. For the perpetrators are also enmeshed in a complex web of sin, victimizing, and suffering. The perpetrator has also suffered, and perhaps part of the reason he perpetrates suffering is because he is also a victim. So God extends welcome to both victim and victimizer, offering both forgiveness and healing.

So where is God in suffering? The cross and resurrection are the best answers a Christian can give. God Himself is a victim of the world's cruelty. He forgave the perpetrators. When evil had done all it could, God raised Jesus from the dead, signifying to all that suffering will not have the final say. There is hope, even when it seems bleakest and the most difficult to discern. And so we as Christians do not return evil for evil, but rather we act in accordance with St. Francis' prayer:

Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace;where there is hatred, let me sow love;where there is injury, pardon;where there is doubt, faith;where there is despair, hope;where there is darkness, light;and where there is sadness, joy. O Divine Master,grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;to be understood, as to understand;to be loved, as to love;for it is in giving that we receive,it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life. Amen.

 

[sojourner]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. You haven't demonstrated how my understanding of scripture is faulty except to declaim so.

That's all I need do, because scripture does not support your claim. At all. Neither does reason. In what way are human beings at fault for the tsunami that ripped through Asia several years ago? Or the tornados that kill people every year? Or the earthquakes that kill people every year? There is nothing definitive in scripture to explain natural disaster as the result of human sin. Nor can disease -- smallpox, plague, etc. be blamed on human sin. It's another example of wishing so badly that there were an answer, that one is willing to find a scapegoat in order to provide that answer.

Jesus announced no message from Gethsemane forward. So what was he doing? In Mark, Jesus is reported to have said "The Son of Man has not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many."

We have to realize that none of the gospels was an eyewitness account. Mark was written post-70 c.e., from a post-crucifixion POV.

Jesus knew early on that it was his purpose, destiny, and vocation to suffer crucifixion. He warned his followers to "take up your cross" because that was the likely result of following him. Death and suffering are integral to God's plan of redemption. And in particular, the crucifixion was part of it. It was God's will that Jesus suffer crucifixion.

I don't know what any of this has to do with your Isaiah reference. Isaiah wasn't writing about Jesus. To assume he was is poor scholarship. Nevertheless, Jesus knew he would suffer, because he knew human nature only too well. he knew that his message would not be taken well by the powers-that-be. he knew that, if he carried his message to completion, crucifixion would be the result. Crucifixion was a by-product of his having remained true to his message -- not the point of his message.

Well, that's just it. The whole point of Jesus' ministry was his death for sin. He was, as John the Baptist said, "the lamb of God." As the lamb was sacrificed in payment for Israel's sins on the Day of Atonement, so Jesus was to be sacrificed in payment for the world's sins on the cross.

au contraire. The whole point of Jesus' ministry hinges on this statement: "Turn your lives around, for God's imperial rule has come near." The whole point of Jesus' ministry hangs on his assertion that he "came to give them life -- and give it abundantly."

I thought we paid for our own sins. Isn't that what the OT asserts? don't we pay for our own sins by being made to suffer through natural disaster?

perhaps part of the reason he perpetrates suffering is because he is also a victim. So God extends welcome to both victim and victimizer, offering both forgiveness and healing.

??? Are you saying that "misery loves company?" Jesus doesn't perpetuate suffering because he is a victim. The whole theological point of the resurrection is that Jesus is not a victim of suffering, but a victor over suffering.

What you're saying, ultimately, is that God causes suffering so that God can have something to save us from. That, too, is an easy answer for why we suffer.

 

[Dunemeister]

That's all I need do, because scripture does not support your claim. At all. Neither does reason. In what way are human beings at fault for the tsunami that ripped through Asia several years ago? Or the tornados that kill people every year? Or the earthquakes that kill people every year? There is nothing definitive in scripture to explain natural disaster as the result of human sin. Nor can disease -- smallpox, plague, etc. be blamed on human sin. It's another example of wishing so badly that there were an answer, that one is willing to find a scapegoat in order to provide that answer.

If you had read my earlier response, you'd have the answer to your question. Read Romans 8.

We have to realize that none of the gospels was an eyewitness account. Mark was written post-70 c.e., from a post-crucifixion POV.

Yes, but so what? The whole Christian community was around to tell him he was full of it if he made a mistake. He obviously made use of already existing Christian tradition when he composed the gospel.

Besides, you can't say "the bible doesn't teach what you're saying" when you think it supports your case, and then say "the bible is inauthentic" when it doesn't. That's special pleading. Either you affirm the scriptural witness or you don't. Once you decide on that, we can move forward.

I don't know what any of this has to do with your Isaiah reference. Isaiah wasn't writing about Jesus. To assume he was is poor scholarship. Nevertheless, Jesus knew he would suffer, because he knew human nature only too well. he knew that his message would not be taken well by the powers-that-be. he knew that, if he carried his message to completion, crucifixion would be the result. Crucifixion was a by-product of his having remained true to his message -- not the point of his message.

When Isiaiah wrote, he didn't have Jesus in mind, that's true. But upon reflection on the events of Easter, it's certainly reasonable to see Jesus' crucifixion as a fulfillment of the passage. That's the way the church has interpreted it for 2000 years, and your complaint does nothing to argue against the point.

The crucifixion was not just the inevitable result of Jesus' message, it was the climax of his ministry. At least, if we take Jesus' interpretation of his vocation seriously. If not, then I suppose we can say what we want about his ministry and message, can't we?

au contraire. The whole point of Jesus' ministry hinges on this statement: "Turn your lives around, for God's imperial rule has come near." The whole point of Jesus' ministry hangs on his assertion that he "came to give them life -- and give it abundantly."

Certainly that was Jesus' call to his hearers (and to us). And in what act did God establish his kingdom? Wasn't it in the resurrection? And how does Jesus give us life? Didn't he have to "go away" so the Holy Spirit could come (John 16), and isn't it the Holy Spirit that regenerates sinners and gives the abundant life Jesus promised? And isn't it the Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, thereby facilitating compliance with God's rule? We can't separate Jesus' call to repentance from his death and resurrection. That death and resurrection are the means of bringing about and establishing God's kingdom.

I thought we paid for our own sins. Isn't that what the OT asserts? don't we pay for our own sins by being made to suffer through natural disaster?

The OT says that God "does not deal with us according to our sins." God is merciful.

??? Are you saying that "misery loves company?" Jesus doesn't perpetuate suffering because he is a victim. The whole theological point of the resurrection is that Jesus is not a victim of suffering, but a victor over suffering.

Why either/or? Why not both/and?

What you're saying, ultimately, is that God causes suffering so that God can have something to save us from. That, too, is an easy answer for why we suffer.

Well, in Isiah God says "I bring life and I bring death; I bring prosperity and I bring ruin." God raises up one and deposes another. God is sovereign. However, I'm not saying that God causes suffering in order for him to have something to save us from. It's not suffering we need saving from. Suffering is a symptom of a deeper problem, and God is saving us from THAT. Humankind has rebelled against God, and that has introduced evil and suffering into the world. God subverts the power of evil and suffering by making it a means of the world's redemption. In particular, the suffering of Jesus is important in this regard, but so is the suffering of the people of God. As Paul said, "I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." Colossians 1:24

I guess Paul was lucky in a way because he could see a point in his suffering. Part of your worry is that some suffering seems gratuitous or pointless. And it may seem so. I may have no particular answer for it. But the Christian need not interpret the world so that all suffering makes sense. It's not possible to do so in any case. Rather, we are called to reach out in mercy and compassion to those who suffer. That is, we take up the example of Jesus in his crucifixion in our response to suffering.

Is it just me, or have we taken this thread way off topic?

 

[sandandfoam]

What do you think a person needs to believe to be a Christian? Is there limits to certain interpretations of the Bible?

I was thinking about this some more and for those who draw lines I wonder -
Christian: Who are you to draw the line ?

 

[doppelganger]

Christian: Who are you to draw the line ?

One compelled to line drawing, perhaps. Lines are drawn out of fear and to help project a certainty about reality - not so much for the benefit of others, but to aid the line drawer's "self" in ignoring the illusory nature of being.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, but so what? The whole Christian community was around to tell him he was full of it if he made a mistake. He obviously made use of already existing Christian tradition when he composed the gospel.

Besides, you can't say "the bible doesn't teach what you're saying" when you think it supports your case, and then say "the bible is inauthentic" when it doesn't. That's special pleading. Either you affirm the scriptural witness or you don't. Once you decide on that, we can move forward.

Mark didn't have "the whole Christian community." He had his community.
I'm not saying it's "inauthentic." I'm saying that it can't be taken as an absolute, or from a pre-crucifixion POV, simply because it's "in the Bible" in a certain way. That, too, is a form of "easy answer" to a complicated issue. the entirety of "existing Christian tradition" comes from a post-crucifixion POV, so we don't really know how Jesus (or the disciples) thought prior to that. All I'm saying is that your use of scripture here is not compelling.

When Isiaiah wrote, he didn't have Jesus in mind, that's true. But upon reflection on the events of Easter, it's certainly reasonable to see Jesus' crucifixion as a fulfillment of the passage. That's the way the church has interpreted it for 2000 years, and your complaint does nothing to argue against the point.

It does when one uses Isaiah to proof-text.

Certainly that was Jesus' call to his hearers (and to us). And in what act did God establish his kingdom? Wasn't it in the resurrection?

I thought God's kingdom was established in creation...

And how does Jesus give us life? Didn't he have to "go away" so the Holy Spirit could come (John 16), and isn't it the Holy Spirit that regenerates sinners and gives the abundant life Jesus promised?

In the orthodox POV, God gives life through the reconciliation that happened in the Incarnation.

We can't separate Jesus' call to repentance from his death and resurrection. That death and resurrection are the means of bringing about and establishing God's kingdom.

I disagree.

Why either/or? Why not both/and?

Because the victory trumps the suffering and makes it unimportant. However, that does not inform in nay way why humans suffer. none of this means that suffering somehow brings about redemption. That's ludicrous.

Well, in Isiah God says "I bring life and I bring death; I bring prosperity and I bring ruin." God raises up one and deposes another. God is sovereign.

have youe ver stopped to consider that the theology present in Isaiah does not particularly inform our modern understanding in the way you propose?

God subverts the power of evil and suffering by making it a means of the world's redemption. In particular, the suffering of Jesus is important in this regard, but so is the suffering of the people of God.

This is the crux of the problem. The idea that suffering effects redemption.

That is, we take up the example of Jesus in his crucifixion in our response to suffering.

And that is precisely the only thing redeemable about the crucifixion: The example of perseverance Christ set for us.

Is it just me, or have we taken this thread way off topic?

I dounno. I'm drawing a line with regard to suffering and substitutionary atonement.

 

[lunamoth]

I prefer the Victory theory of atonement myself, but I don't think we can draw lines around any particular ideas around the 'how' of atonement.

 

[zeezrom]

What do you think a person needs to believe to be a Christian? Is there limits to certain interpretations of the Bible?

Christian would be anyone who, willingly accepts the Gospel of christ through Repentance, Baptism by immersion, The gift of the holy ghost by the laying on of hands and enduring to the end and takes his teachings and molds them to their life style. It's easy to say you believe and have faith, but how do you show it...

 

[Katzpur]

Christian would be anyone who, willingly accepts the Gospel of christ through Repentance, Baptism by immersion, The gift of the holy ghost by the laying on of hands and enduring to the end and takes his teachings and molds them to their life style. It's easy to say you believe and have faith, but how do you show it...

I guess that eliminates pretty much everybody except LDS Christians. I hope you didn't mean to be so exclusionary.

 

[hoodedhess]

To believe that Christ died to save us. I don't know what else I can say on this subject...it's pretty simple nice insight anggellous. OREGON ROCKS !

 

[Scuba Pete]

What do you think a person needs to believe to be a Christian? Is there limits to certain interpretations of the Bible?

Jesus said: "Whatever you did to the least of these, my brothers, you did also to me!" There were many surprised people in this allegory. Many who thought they were in: weren't. And many who thought they were not in: were.

Jesus judges the heart: not the affiliation of the person.

 

[sojourner]

Christian would be anyone who, willingly accepts the Gospel of christ through Repentance, Baptism by immersion, The gift of the holy ghost by the laying on of hands and enduring to the end and takes his teachings and molds them to their life style. It's easy to say you believe and have faith, but how do you show it...

What about those who accept the gospel through faith and baptism by pouring or sprinkling?