diana

Don't confuse Diana with some hope that she will be remembered for any length of time following her death. Once the body is planted the memories quickly fade among even the closest friends and family members. Once the close friends and family members are planted, the memories die with them.

Soon enough all that will remain is some anonymous name on a tombstone which no one ever visits. People will step around it and they might even pause, but they not know and not care about the person whose dust lies beneath.

Without a doubt, Diana's body & memory are fated to die. Absolute nonexistence is her fate. Nothing at all will remain.

Very succinctly put, David. And so it is with all humans. I have no illusions otherwise. I find the realization--which I have given a great deal of thought to--quite liberating.

Thanks for reminding me.

And now to your post to me:

Supposing that your interpretation of this passage is correct, Diana, and that all the people of the Earth except for Christians will be condemned: God can do to these people's souls as He wishes, either condemning them in their ignorance or saving them according to His mercy.

You should keep in mind that the Law of Christ is a law upon men, not a law upon God. God's freedom is not restricted. God can display grace to whomever He wishes.

Supposing you explain how my interpretation of the verse is flawed, and why. For your convenience, here it is again: "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He who believeth not shall be condemned." Please explain why this doesn't mean what it says.

Unless you're arguing that God has given us rules that don't apply to us.

David: Jonah 4:10-11, "the LORD said, 'You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came in a night and perished in a night. And should I not pity Ninevah, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left, and also much livestock?"

God will have mercy upon whomever He chooses.

So you're now arguing that God's "mercy" was the same in the OT and the NT? What was the point in the new law, then? Why change the rules if the rules don't apply? Or why have rules at all, for that matter?

Do the rules apply to us or not, David? Did God tell the truth when he said we'd be crispy critters for eternity if we didn't obey the gospel, or was he just kidding?

ME: David, I ask again: Is there a passage that allows for exceptions to this policy? That was a yes/no question. Please address it.

David: Yes, Exodus 33:19, "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."

So we're free to disregard the "obey the gospel" stuff? After all...those rules don't apply, do they? It's all about who God chooses to bestow his grace upon.

You're focusing on the grace of God as the overriding factor here, but even with that, you cannot--or will not--explain why God bothered to lay out a plan of salvation if we aren't going to be held accountable for it.

In other words, I'm still waiting for you to explain, scripturally, why you think those who haven't heard or obeyed the gospel may still get tickets to heaven.

ME: I haven't read enough of your posts or interacted with you enough to be sure, David, but it appears thus far that you're beginning with the assumption that you are correct and ignoring anything that might contradict the way you've already decided it should be.

David: It is true that you haven't read enough of my posts or interacted with me enough to be sure about anything, Diana.

Well thank you for agreeing with my self-assessment. Now prove my hypothesis wrong.

ME: "Making your calling and election sure" doesn't mean "prove you're right." It means "make sure you're right." The difference is that in the latter, you remain open to the possibility that you may be wrong. That is, if someone pops up with a verse that contradicts what you want to believe, you alter your belief so it accommodates the verse logically. You do not appear to have done that.

David: It is very true that I haven't done that, nor do I feel any special obligation to do so.

Intriguing. Why not?

ME: Right, David. And if you haven't believed and been baptized, which you can't possibly do unless you've heard, you're condemned. I agree that it's terribly unfair, but the verse is unequivocal.

David: Perhaps you might want to find a commentary and read its interpretation of the passage before forming a conviction as to what it means, Diana.

Oh now. And you were doing so well.

Everybody has their notions of what different verses mean. If you disagree with mine, the way to go about contradicting my ideas is to state your take on the verse and why mine can't be right. Suggesting I haven't done my homework is simply rude.

So...how is my interpretation of the verse incorrect?

David: It is necessary for you to obey the gospel to avoid hell, Diana.

Is this your final say on the subject? Atheists can't get to heaven, then? If it is necessary to obey the gospel to avoid hell, then that would apply to any and everyone who hasn't heard it, right?

YOU: Given that Paul would not have known sin without the commandments forbidding sin, those people who are isolated from the law cannot possibly be judged according to the same standard as those who are born immsersed (as it were) in the law.

ME: Au contraire, mon ami. You left out the bit about "those people who are isolated from the law cannot possibly be judged according to the same standard." Where does that fit in? And what does it have to do with Paul not knowing sin without the commandments?

YOU: The people who do not know the commandment still remain in the times of ignorance, i.e. Acts 17:30, "Truly these times of ignorance God overlooked ..." As long as they remain in ignorance they are excluded from judgment according to the law.

So your argument was still pretty much as I outlined it, then? And the end of that verse, which was penned...when? 2nd C. BCE? It goes, "But now he commands all people everywhere to repent." It would seem that remaining in ignorance no longer excludes one from any punishment.

ME: For example? If you wish to cast doubt upon my interpretation of scripture, please come to the table bearing more than accusations and innuendo.

David: I don't regard you as an expert interpreter of the Scriptures. Do you consider yourself an expert Biblical interpreter?

Of course not. I didn't ask you to regard me as an expert, either. I asked for an example of my "doubtful" interpretation of the Scriptures, hopefully accompanied by a lucid explanation of why my interpretation is flawed.

I note you have not done so but opted instead to continue to cast (unsupported) doubt upon my understanding of the bible.

This is a discussion board, David. You won't win an argument here or even gain any respect with unsupported accusations that your opponent doesn't know what she's talking about.

David: Do you "trust in reason", Diana?

ME: But of course. Until something more reasonable comes along. But wait...wouldn't that still be reason?

David: I don't believe that you trust in reason, Diana. Not in the least. Nor do I believe that you have any reason to trust in reason, because you don't know nearly as much as you think you know.

You base this upon what? Again with the assertions. I readily admit I don't know a great deal. That's why I'm asking for answers. I admit I may be making mistakes in my reading of the bible. I leave open the possibility my interpretation is not the right one. If you have the right one, please share. But support your viewpoint.

ME: Again, David: please provide your scriptural support for disregarding clear and unequivocal commands, then explain away the contradiction I outlined above. Simply spewing more of your doctrine does not answer my questions.

David: Well, that is a pity.

Is this a tacit admission that you have no scriptural basis for disregarding the verses you disagree with?

ME: By the way and off the subject, the Thief on the Cross was an incident that (presumably) took place before the New Testament (Will) was in effect, because--Christ wasn't dead yet. If you wish to pursue this, please do so on another thread.

David: Excuse me, Diana, but an example of Jesus saving a person based strictly upon His own choice and for no other reason is directly relevant to our discussion.

Not exactly. I'm making the argument that the bible clearly states that there are certain steps that must be taken to attain salvation. This applies under the New Covenant, which went into effect after Jesus' death. Jesus was still alive at that point, and still under the old law.

David: Have you thought about how quickly your memory will be forgotten once you have reached the nonexistent state?

A day will come in which your body will decompose, your name will be forgotten and the world will continue just as though you never existed.

Oh yes. I know. But your "observation" is irrelevant.

David: I can't help but think that you are an amateur at Biblical interpretation. Is that true, Diana?

Depends upon your definition of amateur, David.

If I am an amateur--and you're free to view me in whatever light that helps you feel superior--this amateur is producing scripture and explaining why she interprets it as she does, as well as addressing your arguments as you present them. That's far more than I can say for you.

ME: Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

So...they have heard? Mr. Mathews said they haven't. Which am I to believe?

David: No, they have not. There are six billion people on the Earth and tens of thousands are born and die every day. Many people -- billions in fact -- live and die without hearing the gospel.

So the bible is incorrect on this score, then?

d

HelenM

Doesn't the thief on the cross disprove Church of Christ theology? Because he was saved but he wasn't baptized...and yet the C of C says you have to be baptized to be saved.

love
Helen

David Mathews

Hello diana,

David: God's rules do apply to us, they just don't apply to God. Is this a difficult concept for atheists?

David: Of course, God's mercy is the same from Old to New Testaments. God's mercy is a quality of God, not a quality of the testaments.

If you want to know the point of the New Law read the book of Hebrews. If you want to know why the rules changed, read the book of Hebrews. If you want to know why there were rules in the first place, read the book of Romans.

David: We are not free to disregard the gospel. If you hear the gospel and reject it, you can expect to spend eternity in hell.

David: We are held accountable for obeying the gospel.

David: If you make a practice of repeating questions I will have to make a practice of repeating answers.

David: Because God has not placed me under any special obligation to conform my understanding of the Scriptures with an atheist.

David: Your approach to interpreting the Scriptures is wrong because it is utterly simplistic. The Bible was not addressed to elementary school children so the rules of simple logic don't resolve the meaning of passages.

David: Atheists who reject the gospel cannot get to heaven. Atheists who never heard or understood the gospel may be saved by God's limitless grace.

David: That is your interpretation of the passage, isn't it?

David: Unsupported doubt of your understandin of the Bible? Don't be silly. You have amply demonstrated your failure to understand the Bible.

David: In cases (such as this thread) in which the observation is evidently true, the accusation has merit.

David: You don't trust in reason because reason (yours and everyone else's) is not intrinsically trustworthy. Throughout history people (including great intellects) have reasoned themselves into error, foolishness and sometimes even death.

David: No, that is a tacit admission of my unconcern for your opinion of my responses to your questions.

David: Oh my, Diana, I think that you are guilty of a serious error. Have you ever studied the Old Law & the religion of the Jews? I think that you might want gain a little knowledge of the context of Jesus' action on the cross before dismissing the act as irrelevant.

David: Well, you know that what you can say for me doesn't mean a single thing to me ...

David: The Bible is not incorrect, your interpretation of the passage is absurd.

Love,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Helen,

David: I can assure you that the thief on the cross account does not contradict church of Christ theology: Jesus is not bound by any law. Jesus can save whomever He wishes.

Love,

David Mathews

HelenM

Jesus not being bound by any law and Jesus being able to save whomever He wishes doesn't even begin to explain to me how the thief on the cross can be considered saved, by a church which teaches you MUST be baptized to be saved.

Do you think you could explain how the thief on the cross was saved, since he wasn't baptized?

Oh forget it - I'll go look up what some other "you have to be baptized" Christian says...
Ok <a href="http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q100.htm" target="_blank">this seems quite to the point</a>

Unlike you the author actually gives reasons how it can be that the thief was saved even though the author believes baptism is necessary for believers to be saved.

And they really do believe baptism is necessary...from <a href="http://198.62.75.12/www1/CDHN/baptism.html#BAPTISM" target="_blank">another page</a> on the site the first one is from...



Talk about guilt-producing!!!

love
Helen

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

David Mathews

Hello Helen,

I visited your web page to see your daily updates. Included among them was the following:

"7/30/02 Update

The children have annual check ups with the doctor and violin lessons today; I'm not sure what else we're doing; it seems that it's going to be warm and sunny today after yesterday's rain."

Is it your custom to update your web page with your planned activities of the day?

Love,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Helen,

David: What's this, Helen? You are not exactly a theologian, are you?

David: I have.

David: That's excellent.

David: You are a unique Christian if the concept of guilt is offensive to you ... assuming, of course, that you are a Christian at all.

Helen, are you absolutely certain that you are an honest person?

Love,

David Mathews

HelenM

Sometimes...why do you ask?

love
Helen

HelenM

Originally posted by David Mathews:
Helen: Jesus not being bound by any law and Jesus being able to save whomever He wishes doesn't even begin to explain to me how the thief on the cross can be considered saved, by a church which teaches you MUST be baptized to be saved.

David: What's this, Helen? You are not exactly a theologian, are you?

I have studied the Bible and theology more than many Christians, I expect. I probably have more resources to do so than many lay Christians. Technically I'm not a theologian, no - but I fail to see the relevance of the question...would you enlighten me please?

Helen: Do you think you could explain how the thief on the cross was saved, since he wasn't baptized?

David: I have.

I think you knew what I was looking for but I found it on that other site. I'm sure the C of C holds to one of the explanations of how the thief was saved, that are on that Catholic web page.

Helen: Unlike you the author actually gives reasons how it can be that the thief was saved even though the author believes baptism is necessary for believers to be saved.

David: That's excellent.

It certainly is

Helen: Talk about guilt-producing!!!

David: You are a unique Christian if the concept of guilt is offensive to you ... assuming, of course, that you are a Christian at all.

I am unique as is every human being - but, I am not unique in my approach to guilt - not at all, David. It is very wrong to endenger false guilt in people. Pressing them to do unnecessary things and telling them that their child will not be saved unless they do, will produce false guilt in them if their child dies before they do the unnecessary things and it is not true. Tess of the D'Urberville's (sp?) depicts well the agony of a young woman who is not allowed to bury her child in the churchyard - well, I forgot exactly why. I think they wouldn't baptize the child because the baby was illegitimate, then they would not let an unbaptized baby be buried in the churchyard. All very shaming and unnecessary, imo. But then Thomas Hardy clearly would have fit in well here with his views of God, organized religion, clergy...

Helen, are you absolutely certain that you are an honest person?

I refer you to my previous answer, David.

I will also add this, though - if I'm not honest then you can't trust my answer anyway so why ask?

love
Helen

David Mathews

Hello Helen,

David: That sort of behavior on your part is odd.

Love,

David Mathews