KeithHarwood

Sorry, I should have put "catholic" in lower case. It doesn't mean Roman Catholic, it just means something not unlike "universal".

KeithHarwood

And yet even this serves to separate one group of True Christians(TM) from their back-sliding, heretical, satan inspired brethren. On the one hand the Church of Christ, on the other the (I think) Baptists, arguing about the position of a comma.

Is it
"I say to you, this day we will be in paradise"

Or
"I say to you this day, we will be in paradise"

Which are the True Christians(TM)?

bltl6

That's a good question. There are basically two schools of thought: Armenian and Calvinism (I am being very general). Armenian's cite Heb. 6:4 and say that people can lose their salvation. So they would say that a Christian-turned-athiest used to be a true Christian, but is now not.

Calvinists would cite Eph. 2:8-9 and say that if we are trully saved not based on merit, but grace, then how can we DO anything that would make us lose our salvation? They would say that a Christian-turned-athiest was never a Christian.

I side with the Calvinists, but I will say that I cannot judge the heart. I can only see the good works of others as EVIDENCE of salvation (Eph. 2:10). But you're right, I can't really, for sure say who is trully saved and who isn't; I can only know for sure my own salvation.

However, looking at Rom. 10:9-10, I can say that if someone had followed this passage, based on what they tell me only, they are saved. But who really knows for sure--only God and that person.

There is no question in my mind (and I'm sure in yours) that there are many who say they are Christian but really aren't. Likewise, there are those who don't act like Christians, but really are. Even Christians will be judged in the end. They will be rewarded for their obedince, or not (1 Cor. 3:15).

bltl6

By "comma" are you asking if I believe that he went to Heaven that day, or at another time (like after Christ's returns)? I'm not fully understanding your question--I'm sorry.

bltl6

Thanx. Yes, I remember you.

I see your point here and I think it has challenged me to think. However, isn't it possible that there is a right answer here (assuming you hold to the Christian Bible at all, of course)?

I would argue that most Evangelicals do hold to what I believe. They might add something to it like "...and be baptized", but the root is the same--one must confess with the mounth and believe in the heart that Christ is Lord.

And in case there are some here that ask, "What about people who can't speak? How can they confess with the mouth?" I think it's asummed that it doesn't mean it HAS to be a confession of the mouth, but rather a verable expression (sign-language), or public expression of commitment.

HelenM

Hi blt

It's nice to see you!

I agree that most Evangelicals agree with you; I don't think most of them believe one has to be baptized - mostly they think it's an act of obedience but not necessary for salvation per se.

Oh, I suppose a True Christian would be obedient, though, wouldn't they?

love
Helen

Gurdur

No. Just plain flat-out no.
G.K.Chesterton once wrote (in one of his Father Brown stories) the definitive angle on this (I paraphrase):

"Don't tell me he reads his Bible every day ! That means nothing.
One man reads his Bible, and finds justifications for slavery; another reads his Bible and finds justifications for abolition.
A Christian Scientist reads his Bible and finds pain is imaginary; a Mormon reads his Bible and finds polygamy.

Some read their Bibles for messages of hate; others for revenge; others for love and redemption, others for damnation,

and others for social climbing."

Mind you, I've paraphrased and expanded.

Which doesn't prove a thing. Plus you're judging from American Evangelicals.

Do you mean an in-group sign of allegience, or do you mean a visible sign in life-style ? Two very different things.

And back to my point: you're still going after justifications, which you will never conclusively find from this angle.

I suggest strongly again you look at it from a completely different angle, that of practical consequences.

JL

bltl6 wrote:

What does that mean, to believe with your heart? A clear conscience? If one believes out of ignorance and with the innocence of a child that what they are doing is the will of Christ (is 'good'), no matter what you and I may think of it, they would be a True Christian.

ManM

IvanK,
That passage doesn't sound like Jesus is telling us what he desires. It seems more like a prophecy or prediction.

Now what does it mean for us to be one? I suspect this would be easier answered in a negative sense. The strife in the middle east is a good example of what Jesus didn't want. Honestly, I don't think you need the bible to tell you what 'being one' or a 'spirit of love' involves.

Furthermore, all are able to be saved. Jesus has saved us from death and given us all the promise of eternal life. Our reaction to this gift will be our heaven or hell. As Metropolitan Hierotheos wrote, "The general teaching of the holy Fathers of the Church is that Paradise and Hell do not exist from God's point of view, but from man's."

ex-preacher,
Yes, you did miss an option. Jesus simply revealed his desire for unity. His prayer was the outpouring of his love for us. And sometimes the true power of a prayer is not that it is answered, but simply that it is expressed.

ex-preacher

I don't know who Metropolitan Hierotheos is nor who exactly he means by "the holy fathers," but I can assure you that the vast majority of orthodox Christian theologians assert that hell and heaven do indeed exist from "God's point of view."

<strong> I have not heard that interpretation before. Given 2,000 years, a wide latitude of interpretation, and a dogged determination to fix all problems, I am never surprised to find dozens of "explanations" for difficult verses.

So, Jesus wasn't really asking the Father to do anything, he was just expressing a desire. That's a bit of stretch, don't you think?

v. 11b "Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name - the name you gave me - so that they may be one as we are one."

This wasn't a request?

vv. 20-23 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me . . ."

Does this remind anyone else of the old Smothers Brothers poem? "So much with us in love are we, so much in love with us are we, that you could kiss you and I could kiss me."

If this is not a request by Jesus, I don't know what is. I don't think he was just wishing on a star, but actually praying (requesting) a certain course of action and result.

I must say, however, that your creative redefinition of prayer as "desire" has the potential to completely remove the problem of unanswered prayer: "No one was really praying for anything - they were merely expressing desires." Well done.