Your thoughts on other religions

[Crypto2015]

The key word here is acceptance. Acceptance isn't as black and white as as your strand of thinking whats to insist upon. The Catholic teaching is a little more nuanced, because it acknowledges the myriad of human circumstances which make the world so complex.

On the surface, baptism and a state of grace are required for salvation. To be in a state of grace is to be regenerated by baptism and free from unrepentant mortal sin. Anyone who though their own volition refuses either regeneration and or repentance cannot be saved. In effect you must accept the Christian revelation. However, (and this is vital to understanding my position) sin is always an act of the will. You sin, when you make the decision to do what you know to be wrong. To choose to reject Christ will result in perdition.

The problem is that not all of those who are non-Christian, are non-Christian because they have chosen to reject the Gospel for something else. A Muslim in an Islamic country has inherited his creed from his circumstances as much as I inherited mine and you yours. He truly, and in sincerity pursues the will of God. Although misled, he cannot in reason be said to be guilty of "choosing" non-Christian convictions. (Unless you really want to commit to the idea that being raised in circumstances which make Christian belief extremely unlikely is itself a sin). I am not exempting the Muslim, Jew or Hindu from the Gospel. One way or the other they all must accept it, but this acceptance may be in such a way that it is known only to God; that because the obstacles to an explicit Christianity were circumstantially insurmountable they are not fully culpable for rejecting the Gospel. (Although they may well still be guilty of any other numerous sins and thus damned). The possibility for the salvation of said non-Christians, does not imply any certainty of it whatsoever.


No, because the Gospel is the means in which God designs to bring all men to salvation. And because of that, it must be preached to all. But the fact is that despite this obligation, it is not clearly available to all. God is just, and will not blame those who hold no blame for this fact lest you claim God to be arbitrary. (Which is reprehensible for anyone but the most committed Calvinist).


Hence why we have the sacrament of penance. All of us sin, and sometimes we sin so grievously that we risk our salvation. Mortal sin is always a wilful act, (this is really, really key to my whole position). But it can always be repented from. Either though confession or through perfect contrition. Again I'm saying that dying as a non-Christian doesn't always imply mortal (wilful) sin. Although for those who have had the Christian message fairly presented to them, it is.

Brother, most of the things that you said are not supported by the scriptures. The word of God is clear: in order to be saved you must accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins and believe that Jesus is the Son of God. There is no other way. Claiming that people can be saved without accepting Jesus' propitiatory sacrifice is tantamount to asserting that Jesus' sacrifice is void and useless. If someone can be saved without resorting to Christ, Christ died in vain. Also, it seems to me that it is not reasonable to believe that people who have never heard the Gospel will have a chance to accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour after their death. This would make the preaching of the Gospel pointless. Why did Paul exposed himself to so many dangers in his missionary journeys if the people to whom he was trying to preach did not need the Gospel to be saved (or were going to hear the Gospel after their death)?

Also, your example about the Hindus and Muslims is patently wrong. Both Hindus and Muslims persecute Christians just because the latter are Christians. This happens all of the time. Are you going to tell me that both Hindus and Muslims are going to be saved anyway? It makes no sense. It is like saying that Saul did not need to turn to Christ and become the apostle Paul in order to be saved. After all, Saul was sincere in what he believed and certainly tried to live a holy life.

 

[jaybird]

Only faith in Jesus saves. Believing in anything other than Jesus (e. g., Krishna, Allah, Buddha, etc.) leads to hell.

so jim jones, a guy who says he loved and believed in Jesus and yet used drugs and killed 700 plus people, he is ok but a Buddhist who lives his entire life according to what Jesus taught, will be punished forever and ever in hell?

 

[Crypto2015]

so jim jones, a guy who says he loved and believed in Jesus and yet used drugs and killed 700 plus people, he is ok but a Buddhist who lives his entire life according to what Jesus taught, will be punished forever and ever in hell?

A Buddhist, regardless of how "good" he is, goes to hell because our salvation does not depend on our works, which by the way are always not good enough to justify us, but on Jesus' propitiatory sacrifice. A person that seems holy to you is a an abominable sinner when judged according to God's standards. We think that there are "good" people on this Earth, like the Buddhist in your example, because we are sinners and our moral standards are very low. God does not have low moral standards. That is why no man is "good" enough to be considered just on Judgement Day. Only by accepting Jesus' sacrifice on the cross we can be admitted into heaven, not because we deserve it, but because we have faith in the only person that was truly holy, Jesus Christ. However, if you have faith in Jesus you will try to behave as Jesus behaved. Not to be saved, but because you are saved. Not out of fear, but out of gratitude. So, If Jim Jones really believed in Jesus he wouldn't kill 700 plus people.

"All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away." (Isaiah 64:6)

 

[jaybird]

A Buddhist, regardless of how "good" he is, goes to hell because our salvation does not depend on our works, which by the way are always not good enough to justify us, but on Jesus' propitiatory sacrifice. A person that seems holy to you is a an abominable sinner when judged according to God's standards. We think that there are "good" people on this Earth, like the Buddhist in your example, because we are sinners and our moral standards are very low. God does not have low moral standards. That is why no man is "good" enough to be considered just on Judgement Day. Only by accepting Jesus' sacrifice on the cross we can be admitted into heaven, not because we deserve it, but because we have faith in the only person that was truly holy, Jesus Christ. However, if you have faith in Jesus you will try to behave as Jesus behaved. Not to be saved, but because you are saved. Not out of fear, but out of gratitude. So, If Jim Jones really believed in Jesus he wouldn't kill 700 plus people.

"All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away." (Isaiah 64:6)

when Jesus was specifically asked about eternal life and He refereed the man to the 2 most important commandments, love the Lord, love your fellow man. He makes no mention of any specific belief system you have to be under to do this.
strange that if someone was to do exactly what Jesus taught here they would be punished forever in hell because they were born into a non Christian culture. and when we apply that with the shedding of innocent blood, one of the detestable sins the Lord says He hates, it really makes no sense at all.


38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us.
41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

so who were these people, they clearly were not one of "them" yet Jesus says dont stop them and that they are with them.

 

[Crypto2015]

when Jesus was specifically asked about eternal life and He refereed the man to the 2 most important commandments, love the Lord, love your fellow man. He makes no mention of any specific belief system you have to be under to do this.
strange that if someone was to do exactly what Jesus taught here they would be punished forever in hell because they were born into a non Christian culture. and when we apply that with the shedding of innocent blood, one of the detestable sins the Lord says He hates, it really makes no sense at all.


38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us.
41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

so who were these people, they clearly were not one of "them" yet Jesus says dont stop them and that they are with them.

Actually, Jesus did say what I am telling you.

"Then they inquired, “What must we do to perform the works of God?”" Jesus replied, “This is the work of God: to believe in the One He has sent.” (John 6:28-29)

The passage that you mentioned actually reinforces this idea. Let's read it together.

"And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:16-26)

Notice that the young man was not saved. Why? Because he actually couldn't keep the commandments. The first of the ten commandments is to love the Lord with all your heart and mind. The young man knew that Jesus was a teacher sent by God, yet he refused to follow Jesus because he loved money more than he loved God. Hence, in just a few seconds he failed to keep one of the ten commandments. That's why Jesus asked him to go and sell everything. Jesus was testing him in order to show him that he was a sinner. Then Jesus goes on to say that what is impossible for a man, is possible for God. What he meant by this is that no one keeps the commandments. We all sin and transgress the holy commandments of God. However, God made the impossible possible by sending Jesus Christ to atone for our sins.

"When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross." (Colossians 2:14)

Also, bear in mind that no one is punished forever in hell because he/she was born in a non-Christian culture. People are justly punished forever in hell for their sins and transgressions. I deserve to spend eternity in hell and so do you. So does everybody. The only reason why we are not going to spend eternity in hell is called Jesus Christ. He paid for our sins on the cross.

The guy who was expelling demons in the name of Jesus was a Christian. That's why the demons were being expelled by him. What this passage shows you is that you don't need to be affiliated to any particular church in order to be saved. All you need is faith in Christ. This person didn't even want to follow the apostles, yet he had faith in Christ and that was more than enough to be saved and to be considered a Christian by Jesus himself.

 

[jaybird]

Actually, Jesus did say what I am telling you.

"Then they inquired, “What must we do to perform the works of God?”" Jesus replied, “This is the work of God: to believe in the One He has sent.” (John 6:28-29)

The passage that you mentioned actually reinforces this idea. Let's read it together.

(Matthew 19:16-26) is a similar teaching but not the same as i was referring to luke 10 25. sorry i should have been more specific.

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’a]">[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’b]">[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

this passage is pretty specific on those 2 commands.

Also, bear in mind that no one is punished forever in hell because he/she was born in a non-Christian culture. People are justly punished forever in hell for their sins and transgressions. I deserve to spend eternity in hell and so do you. So does everybody. The only reason why we are not going to spend eternity in hell is called Jesus Christ. He paid for our sins on the cross.

when He shed His blood for humanity, was it for everyone or only those that knew who He was, heard of Him?

The guy who was expelling demons in the name of Jesus was a Christian. That's why the demons were being expelled by him. What this passage shows you is that you don't need to be affiliated to any particular church in order to be saved. All you need is faith in Christ. This person didn't even want to follow the apostles, yet he had faith in Christ and that was more than enough to be saved and to be considered a Christian by Jesus himself.

i think there is much more to it than that. i think there is a clear difference between someone that teaches and believes in ideas that are contrary to what Jesus taught and those that teach and live by laws that are the same as Jesus but not the anglo-american version. this is what i see

 

[Crypto2015]

(Matthew 19:16-26) is a similar teaching but not the same as i was referring to luke 10 25. sorry i should have been more specific.

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’a]">[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’b]">[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

this passage is pretty specific on those 2 commands.



when He shed His blood for humanity, was it for everyone or only those that knew who He was, heard of Him?



i think there is much more to it than that. i think there is a clear difference between someone that teaches and believes in ideas that are contrary to what Jesus taught and those that teach and live by laws that are the same as Jesus but not the anglo-american version. this is what i see

In Luke 10:28 Jesus said that if you can keep the law you will be saved. However, he didn't say that there were people who actually kept the law. The man who was talking to Jesus certainly knew that he wasn't able to keep the Law, since the following verse says: "But he, desiring to justify himself said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" (Luke 10:29). That Jesus preached salvation through faith in his name can be seen in the same Gospel of Luke. For example:

"I tell you, whoever publicly acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God. But whoever denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God." (Luke 12:8-9)

That he was going to die for our sins and pay for our transgressions is evident from:

"And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." (Luke 22:19-20)

Jesus died for all mankind, but his sacrifice only cleanses those who have faith in him. What you interpret from the passage of the man who refused to follow the apostles is not reflected on the text. That man had faith in Jesus as the son of God.

Let me ask you something, do you believe that the letters of the apostles are inspired by God?

 

[jaybird]

In Luke 10:28 Jesus said that if you can keep the law you will be saved. However, he didn't say that there were people who actually kept the law. The man who was talking to Jesus certainly knew that he wasn't able to keep the Law, since the following verse says: "But he, desiring to justify himself said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" (Luke 10:29).

but none the less Jesus refers the man to those 2 commands when questioned about eternal life.

That Jesus preached salvation through faith in his name can be seen in the same Gospel of Luke. For example:

"I tell you, whoever publicly acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God. But whoever denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God." (Luke 12:8-9)

i dont see salvation, eternal life or the Lords kingdom mentioned here?

That he was going to die for our sins and pay for our transgressions is evident from:

"And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." (Luke 22:19-20)

the new covenant is a whole new conversation. yes i believe He shed blood for this.

Jesus died for all mankind, but his sacrifice only cleanses those who have faith in him.

whats the difference between all of mankind and only those that have faith?

What you interpret from the passage of the man who refused to follow the apostles is not reflected on the text. That man had faith in Jesus as the son of God.

are you the final authority on how scripture is interpreted?

Let me ask you something, do you believe that the letters of the apostles are inspired by God?

why do you ask?
i personally believe anything taught after the message of Jesus, if it can not be confirmed by Jesus it may be understood wrong. i would not base any key beliefs on anything i could not confirm with Jesus Himself.

 

[Crypto2015]

but none the less Jesus refers the man to those 2 commands when questioned about eternal life.


i dont see salvation, eternal life or the Lords kingdom mentioned here?



the new covenant is a whole new conversation. yes i believe He shed blood for this.


whats the difference between all of mankind and only those that have faith?


are you the final authority on how scripture is interpreted?


why do you ask?
i personally believe anything taught after the message of Jesus, if it can not be confirmed by Jesus it may be understood wrong. i would not base any key beliefs on anything i could not confirm with Jesus Himself.

So, let me understand this a little bit better. You think that we are saved by keeping the Law?

If so, you are not following Jesus' teachings.

"Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”" (John 6:35-40)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (John 6:47-51)

"You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness." (Galatians 5:4-5)

 

[Glaurung]

The word of God is clear: in order to be saved you must accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins and believe that Jesus is the Son of God. There is no other way. Claiming that people can be saved without accepting Jesus' propitiatory sacrifice is tantamount to asserting that Jesus' sacrifice is void and useless.

Again, please actually read what I'm saying. Although I'm starting to think you're not actually capable of grasping it, as we come from very different theological worlds.

If someone can be saved without resorting to Christ

Christ always does the saving in all situations. I've clearly asserted this every time. No one can save themselves.

Also, it seems to me that it is not reasonable to believe that people who have never heard the Gospel will have a chance to accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour after their death. This would make the preaching of the Gospel pointless.

You keep making the same objections that simply do not apply to what I'm saying. It is never pointless to preach the Gospel as preaching it is a direct command of Christ. It is the means which God brings us to salvation. All of those who are to end up as saved will be saved though Christ and His Chruch. Which contra Protestant claims, is in fact the real message of the Gospel. (The actual text of Scripture is actually only a part of the Sacred Tradition). God however isn't limited by the strict confines of the visible Chruch. Which is why there is always hope for the salvation of all men, Christian or not.

Why did Paul exposed himself to so many dangers in his missionary journeys if the people to whom he was trying to preach did not need the Gospel to be saved (or were going to hear the Gospel after their death)?

Because God commanded him (and all of us) to preach the Gospel to all, because the Gospel is the means in which God brings us to salvation. It is really not hard to grasp. And by the way, by Gospel, I mean the full Christian revelation which precedes the New Testament texts. The Scriptures are not the central point (And never were). There was no cannon for centuries, and the Chruch did just fine.

Also, your example about the Hindus and Muslims is patently wrong. Both Hindus and Muslims persecute Christians just because the latter are Christians. This happens all of the time. Are you going to tell me that both Hindus and Muslims are going to be saved anyway?

Okay, this one somewhat annoyed me. Have you actually read anything I've said? Anyone again anyone who dies unrepentant of sin will go to Hell. This even includes Christians.

As will anyone who refuses to become Christian when the fair opportunity is presented.

It is like saying that Saul did not need to turn to Christ and become the apostle Paul in order to be saved. After all, Saul was sincere in what he believed and certainly tried to live a holy life.

Saul also had Christ directly revealed to him. (A privilege very, very few ever get). He was thus obligated to accept Christ. His personal guilt otherwise would have been even more immense then any non-Christian today, as he had received direct sight of Christ Himself. Paul had certainty, most of us never get anything near that privilege. (And responsibility on the flip side).

 

[Crypto2015]

Again, please actually read what I'm saying. Although I'm starting to think you're not actually capable of grasping it, as we come from very different theological worlds.


Christ always does the saving in all situations. I've clearly asserted this every time. No one can save themselves.


You keep making the same objections that simply do not apply to what I'm saying. It is never pointless to preach the Gospel as preaching it is a direct command of Christ. It is the means which God brings us to salvation. All of those who are to end up as saved will be saved though Christ and His Chruch. Which contra Protestant claims, is in fact the real message of the Gospel. (The actual text of Scripture is actually only a part of the Sacred Tradition). God however isn't limited by the strict confines of the visible Chruch. Which is why there is always hope for the salvation of all men, Christian or not.


Because God commanded him (and all of us) to preach the Gospel to all, because the Gospel is the means in which God brings us to salvation. It is really not hard to grasp. And by the way, by Gospel, I mean the full Christian revelation which precedes the New Testament texts. The Scriptures are not the central point (And never were). There was no cannon for centuries, and the Chruch did just fine.


Okay, this one somewhat annoyed me. Have you actually read anything I've said? Anyone again anyone who dies unrepentant of sin will go to Hell. This even includes Christians.

As will anyone who refuses to become Christian when the fair opportunity is presented.


Saul also had Christ directly revealed to him. (A privilege very, very few ever get). He was thus obligated to accept Christ. His personal guilt otherwise would have been even more immense then any non-Christian today, as he had received direct sight of Christ Himself. Paul had certainty, most of us never get anything near that privilege. (And responsibility on the flip side).

Why would Christ ask you to preach the Gospel if people can be saved without it? It makes no sense at all. What or who is the maximum authority for you? Is it the Bible or the something else? Also, did you come up with these theses yourself or are they something that the Catholic church teaches?

 

[jaybird]

So, let me understand this a little bit better. You think that we are saved by keeping the Law?

If so, you are not following Jesus' teachings.

"Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”" (John 6:35-40)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (John 6:47-51)

"You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness." (Galatians 5:4-5)

The law
For salvation - not so much
To be a follower of Christ - yes
Will explain more later on phone

 

[Crypto2015]

The law
For salvation - not so much
To be a follower of Christ - yes
Will explain more later on phone

OK.

 

[Clear]

Crypto2015

Your complaints regarding Musing Bassist’s posts are irrelevant since they do not touch on the point he’s actually making. Instead, they criticize positions he's not taking.

His point, that a person who has never rejected Jesus, (indeed, one who has never heard of Jesus), is in a different state than one who hears of the authentic gospel, and, with understanding, rejects it. The first is not culpable of specific rejection while the other is.

Musing Bassist gave the example of one who has never heard of Jesus. It is injustice to punish a person for rejecting a truth they never had access to. This, a just God does not do.

For example, an infant who is born and lives for a month has not sinned. The infant is neither culpable of having made any choice to sin, nor has the infant accepted Jesus. The infant cannot justly be punished.

I think this is, partly Musing Bassists’ point. The Catholic position seems to be wonderfully “nuanced” (as M.B. pointed out) on this specific point. It is a wise and wonderful distinction the Catholics are making on this specific point.


Clear
σεακτωω

 

[jaybird]

So, let me understand this a little bit better. You think that we are saved by keeping the Law?

If so, you are not following Jesus' teachings.

i dont think salvation is earned by law keeping such as going through life with a checklist. Jesus taught on this and explained it in more detail. the blood sacrifice of Jesus was part of it but His teachings are part of it as well. the 2 commands i listed are part of it.

"Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”" (John 6:35-40)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (John 6:47-51)

"You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness." (Galatians 5:4-5)

i believe in Jesus, to me this means i believe in everything He taught. not just a few teachings here and there.

 

[Crypto2015]

Crypto2015

Your complaints regarding Musing Bassist’s posts are irrelevant since they do not touch on the point he’s actually making. Instead, they criticize positions he's not taking.

His point, that a person who has never rejected Jesus, (indeed, one who has never heard of Jesus), is in a different state than one who hears of the authentic gospel, and, with understanding, rejects it. The first is not culpable of specific rejection while the other is.

Musing Bassist gave the example of one who has never heard of Jesus. It is injustice to punish a person for rejecting a truth they never had access to. This, a just God does not do.

For example, an infant who is born and lives for a month has not sinned. The infant is neither culpable of having made any choice to sin, nor has the infant accepted Jesus. The infant cannot justly be punished.

I think this is, partly Musing Bassists’ point. The Catholic position seems to be wonderfully “nuanced” (as M.B. pointed out) on this specific point. It is a wise and wonderful distinction the Catholics are making on this specific point.


Clear
σεακτωω

The problem with his position is that it is based on human disquisitions and not on God's word. Jesus said that his propitiatory sacrifice is the only means by which a sinner can be saved. This is the Biblical position. It means that if you haven't explicitly accepted Jesus' sacrifice for your sins, you will be justly condemned. He, or perhaps the Catholic church, are turning Jesus' words around in order to end up with the following statement: "Only those that have expressly rejected Christ are definitely condemned". The latter message and Jesus' message are two completely different statements and he has no scriptural basis whatsoever to assert what he is asserting. His position may seem fair from a human perspective, but it denies that efficacy and power of the Gospel. If he is right in what he is saying preaching the Gospel is pointless, since people will be saved anyway, regardless of having heard the Gospel or not. His position renders the following passage nonsensical:

"It is just as the Scripture says: “Everyone who believes in Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Greek: The same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich to all who call on Him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then can they call on the One they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” (Romans 10:11-15)

 

[Crypto2015]

i dont think salvation is earned by law keeping such as going through life with a checklist. Jesus taught on this and explained it in more detail. the blood sacrifice of Jesus was part of it but His teachings are part of it as well. the 2 commands i listed are part of it.



i believe in Jesus, to me this means i believe in everything He taught. not just a few teachings here and there.

Then I don't understand what you believe. It seems to me that you keep contradicting yourself. Perhaps I didn't understand your point from the beginning.

 

[jaybird]

Musing Bassist gave the example of one who has never heard of Jesus. It is injustice to punish a person for rejecting a truth they never had access to. This, a just God does not do.

this example you gave, by definition would be an innocent person would it not?

 

[jaybird]

Then I don't understand what you believe. It seems to me that you keep contradicting yourself. Perhaps I didn't understand your point from the beginning.

it means i believe in what Jesus taught and not what the church says He taught.

 

[Crypto2015]

Musing Bassist gave the example of one who has never heard of Jesus. It is injustice to punish a person for rejecting a truth they never had access to. This, a just God does not do.

I hadn't noticed this. You must understand that God does not condemn us for rejecting Jesus. He condemn us because of our sins. All of us have sinned and deserve the rage of God and eternal punishment in hell. So, condemnation comes not as a punishment for unbelief (this would be unjust), but as a punishment for our sins (this is just).