Johnny Skeptic

There is good evidence that the Bible says that a man can lose his salvation. Hebrews 6:4-7 say "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." (NIV)

Although many Christians dispute what I said, there is further proof that I am right. Matthew 7:21-23 say "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (KJV)

Now Jesus had to have been speaking to Christians because in Matthew 12:26 and Mark 3:23 he said that Satan cannot cast out Satan, meaning that only believers can cast out Satan.

Kyran

Hi Johnny, I am a Christian outside of the Calvinist-Arminian school of thought.

You--like many others before you--have enough sense to refute the 'inalienable salvation' doctrine, and yes many (most) Christians don't want to hear that. They believe God will give them special consideration on Judgment Day just because they believe in the divinity of Jesus. And worse, they believe Jesus came and died to give them this privilege.

A sincere correction, coming from one who does not believe in my God, is more moral in my God's eyes than any church sermon regardless of attendance count.

Johnny Skeptic

Thanks, Kyran. I would be even more pleased if you tell me that you believe that hell is not a very bad place, and that God might offer skeptics a parole in the next life.

Laura D.

In my view, you accurately interpret those passages. But I am biased against any religious doctrine that relies on concepts of once saved, always saved or predestination. And I think your point touches on both issues.

My bias against once saved, always saved for any religion lies in my perception that it deflates the moral or ethical values advance by that religion. It also undermines any concept of personal growth once a person locks in salvation. Once salvation is locked in, it effectively converts the rules into guidelines for that person. Predestination is worse. It turns religion into a game of winners and loser based on a random pull of the slot machine.

I know these aren't the theological arguments against these doctrines. At least, I have not stated them in theological language. But at least, I have given you a sense of my objections to these doctrines.

I have read the moral formal criticism of these doctrines. I have also read the counters to that criticism. I found the arguments in favor of these doctrines unpersuasive.

I am a Christian. So I briefly respond to the questions put to Kynan on the assumption you may ask me those very questions.

Do I believe hell is a very bad place? I'll analogize. If you stood by a river of time and glance back, you see in the distance a large stretch where you never existed. If you look forward, you see a long stretch in which you will never exist. The past is not worse than the future. You now have my vision of eternal death or hell if you prefer.

Will God offer skeptics a parole in the next life? I hope so. In the end, whether you call it God's law written in people's heart or the product of millions of years of evolution, we all share a sense of morality and humanity. Whether we analyze morality based on something akin to Kant's idea of universal ethics, Peter Singer's Practical Ethics, or Jesus' commandment to love our neighbors as we love ourself, we in some sense follow a Golden or at least Silver rule.

And maybe we both might acknowledge that if we lined up the people who have violated that rule and then separated them into those who claimed to be Christians and those who profess an atheistic understanding ... here I want to say more who claim Christianity than those who claim atheism will have violated the rule, but I run into the reality that we all bend and break it on occasion ... so I'll simply say there are truly, horrendous violators among those who claim to follow Christ.

One thing I do believe, we're in this world together. And people of faith and non-faith are better off if they can learn how to share it.

God bless,


Laura

rhutchin

Just to provide context for the Hebrews passage we need to add the verses immediately preceding those you cited.

Hebrews 6
1 Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,
2 instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
3 And God permitting, we will do so.

The things listed in v4-7 are elementary teachings about Christ. On hearing these elementary things a person can do either one of two things. The person can go on to maturity (i.e., salvation) or fall away. The person who "falls away" is the person who rejects the elementary teachings in favor of the life he had been leading.

This is not a profound teaching. It merely says that the elementary teachings about Christ are all that there is. If a person rejects these teachings, there is nothing more that can be said to convince the person to reconsider his decision. If you tell a person that he is a sinner and he rejects that, it will do no good to tell him the same thing a second time.

The passage from Matthew tells us that many people think that one enters heaven by doing certain works so they do those works. Jesus has warned those people now so that they have no compalint later.

Johnny Skeptic

You are wrong, as usual. As I showed in my opening post, in Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus had to be talking about Christians who would lose their salvation because he said in two other Scriptures, which I quoted, that Satan cannot cast out Satan, meaning that only believers could cast out Satan, and in Matthew 7:22, he said that some Christians who have cast out devils will not go to heaven. Verse 22 says ".......and in thy name have cast out devils." Verse 23 says "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." "I never knew you" cannot mean that those people were not Christians. What Jesus meant was that it will be "as if" he never knew them. It is obvious that you have embarrassed yourself once again.

You have plenty of unfinished business left in the thread that is titled '2 Peter 3:9.'

What about your absurd uncorroborated notion that the Bible is inerrant? Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4evide92.html

Farrell Till

Despite the editing process by which the canonical books were selected, the biblical text is still fraught with inconsistencies that make Mr. Miller's claim of "unequaled internal harmony" a myth that is believed only by gullible bibliolaters who haven't bothered to investigate the claim. As noted in an earlier article ("A Perfect Work of Harmony?" TSR, Spring 1990, p. 12), whoever wrote 2 Kings 10:30 obviously believed that Jehu's massacre of the Israelite royal family was the will of Yahweh, but the prophet Hosea just as obviously disagreed and pronounced a curse upon the house of Jehu to avenge the "blood of Jezreel" that Jehu shed in the massacre (Hosea 1:4). Apparently, the "inspired" prophets and biblical writers had their theological and political differences as much as modern-day religious leaders.

Any present day inerrantist would affirm with his dying breath that the book of Ezekiel was unquestionably inspired of God, yet the rabbis who made the canonical selection were of a different mind. A bitter controversy surrounded this book before it was finally selected for inclusion in the Hebrew canon. The rabbis were bothered by chapters 40-48, which contained information that was difficult to reconcile with the Torah. Ezekiel 46:6 is just one example of the problems the rabbis had to deal with in these chapters. Here Ezekiel said that the sacrifice for the new moon should consist of "a [one] young bullock without blemish, six lambs, and a ram," but the instructions for this same sacrificial ceremony in Numbers 28:11 stipulated two young bullocks, seven lambs, and a ram." The discrepancy or, if you please, lack of "internal harmony" is readily apparent to anyone who wants to see it.

At least it was apparent to the rabbis who had to decide whether the book should be considered canonical. According to Hebrew tradition, Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah retired to a room with 300 "measures of oil" and worked day and night until he arrived at explanations that would "dispose of the discrepancies" (The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, Cambridge University press, 1970, p. 134). One wonders why such an undertaking as this was necessary to decide the canonicity of a book that exhibits "unequaled internal harmony." Could it be that Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah was merely the Bible inerrantist of his day, who rather than accepting the face value of what was written spent several days searching for innovative interpretations that would make doctrinally embarrassing passages not mean what they obviously were intended to mean?

Johnny: Rhutchin, I might be able to get Farrell Till to debate inerrancy with you in a new thread that I can start. If I can, are you interested? May I ask what good an inerrant Bible is if it can be changed? It can in fact easily be changed, taken to some remote jungle areas of the world, and used to deceive at least a few people. If the original Bible was inerrant, what evidence do you have that it has been PRESERVED inerrant?

What evidence do you have that the additional books in the Roman Catholic Bible are not the word of God?

Edit: I just made a post in the thread that is titled '2 Peter 3:9'. Please reply to it, and if you don't mind, please reply to all of my arguments. If you don't, as you know by now, I do not mind reposting arguments that you conveniently do not reply to.

rhutchin

You need to read what Jesus is recorded as having said. Jesus was addressing an audience that consisted of Christians and those who said that they were Christians. There are people who say that they are Christians based on something that they have done (e.g., praying some prayer, getting baptized, going to a certain church, etc) and these people can be very fervent in witnessing. They will stand before Christ and claim that they have earned the right to enter heaven because of the works that they did. Jesus says that it does not work that way.

When Jesus said, "I never knew you," he meant it. There is no "as if" implied. There was no relationship between Jesus and the person claiming salvation on the basis of works. I am not embarassed by that which Jesus said.

Johnny Skeptic

"As if" is most certainly implied. 2 Peter 3:9 clearly says that God is not willing that any should perish. You can't get away with claiming that that is not what the verse says. You used other Scriptures to try to reasonably prove that 2 Peter 3:9 does not mean that God is not willing that any should perish. Similarly, I used other Scriptures that back up the claim in Hebrews chapter 6 that a Christian can lose his salvation. The texts are quite clear that only a human who is a Christian can cast out devils. Matthew 12:23-26say "And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?" Mark 3:22-26 say "And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end." I assume that the average sixth grader can understand that those references mean that Satan cannot cast out Satan.
Matthew 7:21-23 say "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." ".......and in thy name have cast out devils" has to be referring to people who are Christians because Jesus clearly said that Satan cannot cast out Satan, surely meaning that non-Christians cannot cast out devils, so "I profess unto them, I never knew you" has to mean "it will be 'as if' I never knew you." Logically, no other interpretations are possible if you wish to harmonize all of the Scriptures that I mentioned.

rhutchin

If you think so, then you should explain how "as if" is implied (i.e., explain how Jesus meant that it will be "as if" he never knew them.). Maybe you are looking at the phrase "knew them" in a manner different than that intended.

Everyone seems to agree that the verse says, "God is not willing that any should perish." The issue here is the meaning of "any." The antecedent for "any" is the audience to whom Peter was writing. God is not willing that "any" of them perish. If you disagree, you can trace back to another antecedent to show that it means something else (so far, you have not been able to do that) or you can just ASSUME that any means something else and explain how that would be relevant to the argument Peter is making (you have not been able to do that either). How about posting (on the 2 Peter thread) an explanation to support your "faith" that God is not willing that "any" perish. This seems to be counteracted by the Matthew 7 citation you made above where some people (those to whom Jesus says, "I never knew you") seem to be excluded from heaven (counter to your belief about 2 Peter 3).

If your interpretation is correct, then this would also counter your belief about 2 Peter 3 suggesting that you could have misunderstood 2 Peter 3. However, you have not addressed the context explained in Hebrews where the writer says that he is talking about elementary principles. As in 2 Peter 3, you seem to be "making up" whatever you need the verse to mean in order to prove your contention.

Read it again, Jesus said that people will stand before Him and say (claim) "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?" In fact, these people did NOT prophesy in Jesus' name, did NOT cast out demons in Jesus' name (think of the faith healers on TV today) and did NOT do many wonders in Jesus' name (they may have done things to get people to give them money). It is true that non-Christians cannot cast out devils. People have been prone to claim otherwise - to claim that they followed Christ and to claim that they cast out demons.

Johnny Skeptic

That is a good argument, and I cannot refute it. However, my main arguments against Christianity are in the thread that is titled '2 Peter 3:9'. You have been quite evasive in that thread, and I don't blame you.